Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 17.—(DUTY OF THE AUTHORITY TO HAVE REGARD TO PUBLIC INTEREST, AND OBJECTS TO BE ATTAINED BY THEM.)

Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 6, after "reduce" insert "so far as is practicable."

11.5 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I think that it would be convenient for the House to consider, with this Amendment, the next Amendment, in line 8, after "increasing" insert "so far as is practicable," because the words are the same and it reflects exactly the same point. This is not really a very substantial Amendment.

Mr. John Hall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This puts me in some difficulty. If these two Amendments are discussed together it will make it impossible, as I understand the position, for one to accept the first Amendment and not the second, or vice versa.

Mr. Speaker: The proposal is that they should be discussed together. They have to be put as separate Questions.

Mr. Vane: As I was saying, this is not a very substantial point. The words were selected by the Select Committee of another place to meet a point which was raised in the City of London petition. We do not consider that it amounts to any very substantial change. In fact, it really reflects the intention of the Clause and the duties of the

Authority as set out in Clause 17. What it amounts to is to give the Authority rather more discretion which, we think, is advantageous. I therefore hope that the House will agree to this Amendment.

Mr. John Hall: I am in a little difficulty about this, because, although I understand the purpose behind the Amendment, I am not at all sure that it does not weaken the subsection to a point when it is unacceptable. I have looked up the definition of the word "practicable" in Chamber's Twentieth Century Dictionary and it is given as:
That may be practised, used or followed; passable, as a road.
I am wondering whether this is really what we want to insert in this subsection. I would have thought that "possible" might have been better if we are to accept the Amendment at all.
The insertion of this Amendment changes the very definite nature of this subsection, which lays a duty on the Authority to reduce the amount of produce being brought in bulk to Covent Garden and, at the same time, to increase the business to be done there. This Amendment, however, reduces the definite nature of that duty to a permissive power, which is something very indefinite. For example, it might be said that the Government shall accept Amendments to the Bill that are passed in the other place, as against the effect of an Amendment such as this, which would alter this to that the Government shall, so far as practicable, accept Amendments passed in the other place, and which might be passed with the approval of both Houses.
Similarly, under this Amendment—as I understand it—the Authority may now be able to decide, perhaps under pressure from the traders and those using the market, that it is not practicable to reduce the bulk going to the market although it may be practicable to increase the business. It may decide, perhaps under pressure of the traffic commissioners and those who use the area of Covent Garden, that, although it is practicable to reduce the bulk and put it somewhere else, it is not practicable to increase the business. Or it may decide that it is not practicable to do either.
In any case, what was a definite duty on the Authority will become an indefinite and permissive duty. It might be


acceptable to say that the Authority, if practicable, may increase the amount of business because that is, to some extent, outside the power of the Authority to decide. It would be difficult for it to increase the business in the Covent Garden area and, for that reason, it is probably sound to put some such words into the Clause which gives it this loophole.
I do not agree that it is necessarily sound to give the Authority this loophole in the case of the power laid on it now to reduce the amount of bulk going into that area. If we accept this Amendment, the Authority may well, at a later stage, plead that because of circumstances outside its control, because of the need to continue to bring bulk into the Market, if it is to increase the business of the Market, it has to continue allowing an increased amount of bulk going into the same area, with all the consequent repercussions of the traffic problem. If this Amendment were accepted, the Authority would be able to make that plea successfully.
If that were to happen, it would show, above all, the folly of agreeing to allow, or to insist upon, the Authority rebuilding Covent Garden Market on its present site or adjacent to its present site. It pinpoints some of the reasons for the objections in this House, and particularly in another place. When this matter was first discussed in another place an Amendment was passed which would allow the Covent Garden Market Authority to decide for itself where to put the new market. For these reasons, I suggest that it is unsound to give the Authority the permissive power to reduce bulk if it possibly can, and that we ought to retain in the Clause the definite power whereby it shall reduce the bulk coming into the market.
I would not have the same objections to the Amendment in so far as it affects the amount of business to be done, for the reasons that I have already stated, but I hope that the House will think seriously about accepting the first Amendment, because if we do accept it we may well find this market in the centre of this vast area subject to the same kind of traffic chaos—indeed, possibly an increased amount—to which many have objected both in this House and in another place.

Mr. Colin Turner: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall). I feel that the Amendment would weaken the whole Bill. Indeed, it would go a long way towards destroying one of the main purposes of the Bill, which is to try to cut down the amount of bulk produce going into the market.
I wish to register my protest, as one who for many years has had to suffer from the traffic congestion in this area, having had my offices either in the area or immediately outside. It is undesirable to give any loophole at all to the Authority and to whittle away its responsibility to reduce the amount of bulk produce going into the market, and thus the amount of traffic.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: We on this side of the House do not share the objections to these Amendments which have been expressed by the hon. Members for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) and Woolwich, West (Mr. Turner). They will know that I favour the Bill and that I think it right that Covent Garden Market should remain where it is.
Hon. Members will see that the words which appear in these Amendments appear also in the previous paragraph of the subsection. They constitute a well-known Parliamentary expression. The intention is to qualify the statutory duties, and I am in favour of that qualification when it is felt that a statutory authority would have grave difficulty in complying with the law.
We shall not lose sight of the Bill when it becomes an Act and leaves this House. It will come back to us in the sense that we shall have reports from the Covent Garden Market Authority. If we feel that the Authority is not carrying out the wishes of the House we shall be able to question its activities. Far be it from me to defend the Government, but we on these benches support the inclusion of these words because we feel that it is the right thing to do.

11.15 a.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): I follow the arguments of my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) and Woolwich, West (Mr. Turner), although I do not agree with


them. The same arguments could be adduced in respect of the Clause as if stood unamended in another place. If we say:
as to reduce, on the one hand, the amount of produce brought in in bulk to the Covent Garden Area
one cannot specify the extent to which it will be reduced. The Authority would be fulfilling the letter of the law if a fewer number of crates of apples were brought in than had been brought in hitherto.
We must act on the supposition that this is to be a responsible Authority which will appreciate the duties laid upon it by the Bill and will do its best to carry them out. The proposed words "so far as is practicable" were suggested by a Select Committee in another place, which thought it reasonable to add them. Whichever way we take it, whether we take the amended version or the version as it stood, I do not think that we can say that it is more or less likely to make the Authority bring into the market less produce in bulk than is at present occurring.
I see the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, but I do not accept that the words:
as to reduce so far as is practicable, on the one hand, the amount of produce brought in in bulk
are anything but reasonable and I hope the House will feel able to accept the Amendment.

Mr. John Hall: By leave of the House, I should like to comment briefly on my right hon. Friend's remarks. I find it difficult to follow his argument, because Clause 17, as it now stands, states that
… the Authority shall … so exercise and perform their functions "—
and then, in paragraph (g):
as to reduce, on the one hand, the amount of produce brought in in bulk. …
That is a very definite duty. Although it may be true that the Authority could reduce the amount by a small percentage and still say that it had met the requirements of the Clause, nevertheless it is called upon to reduce. As the Amendment now stands, there could be a large amount of produce coming into the market and the Authority could plead that it was able to increase the amount in view of the provisions of the amended Clause. I do not think that possibility

was in the minds of their Lordships when they proposed this Amendment.

Mr. Mellish: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that when we are making laws of this kind we should ensure that it is possible for them to be complied with? If we put into an Act of Parliament a provision which it is impossible to carry out or which people have good reason for not complying with, it makes the whole thing ridiculous. In my opinion, these proposed words provide the sort of margin to which the Authority is entitled.

Mr. Hall: I agree that we should not put into legislation any provisions which cannot be carried out, but this duty can be carried out. There may be differences of opinion as to whether there should be a bulk storage depot, or whether the whole market should be moved somewhere else, but this provision can be carried out. I agree that it is by no means sure that the Authority can carry out the duty laid on it to increase the business, and in that respect I would be prepared to accept the Amendment. There is no doubt that the Authority could carry out the duty which is now imposed on it of reducing the amount of bulk produce brought in, but under the proposed Amendment it would be able to slide out of that duty if it was under pressure from traders or the Transport and General Workers' Union to increase the amount of bulk going into the market.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I apologise for not being here during the first two or three minutes of the discussion of the Amendment.
This is an unfortunate Amendment, for this reason. It is obvious from looking at lines 6 to 10 of the subsection that the object of the subsection is that the Authority shall alter the method of trading in the market by reducing the amount going in in bulk, and that there shall be other methods of trading, which clearly means sale by sample.
That may be a little difficult to impose upon people who have been brought up to this form of trading in bulk for the whole of their working life. The insertion of the words:
so far as is practicable
would give a loophole to the Authority, which might have difficulty in enforcing


this new method of trading on traders, and make it possible for it to say, "We cannot do it. People will not have it. It is not practicable".
In my view, we take all the power out of the subsection by adding these words, and I regard the suggestion as most unfortunate.

Sir John Vaughan-Morgan: One is entitled to cavil at the extraordinary argument advanced by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). Naturally, the whole purpose of the House is to pass legislation which is practicable, and, accordingly, we seek in our Committees so to define the provisions of Bills as to express the purposes which we seek to attain.
The insertion of the words
so far As is practicable
has the consequence that we give a loophole, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) said, by which, in this case, the Authority can entirely nullify the whole purpose which the Minister told us was the purpose when first bringing the Bill before the House.
A newly appointed Authority, under another Minister, might be able to drive a coach and horses through the whole intention which we accepted—very reluctantly in some cases—on the Second Reading of the Bill. The suggestion which the hon. Gentleman advances is really not suitable at this stage for inclusion in an Act of Parliament. It is something which ought to be incorporated in an Interpretation Act with a special Clause providing that anything in any Bill may be read only as binding provided that it is practicable. I can imagine the trouble that that would lead to.
We cannot rest content with the other argument of the hon. Gentleman, when he says that we shall have plenty of time to study the annual reports of the Authority. If he really believes that the House will, in the years to come, be able to spend many days discussing the activities of the Covent Garden Market Authority, he must have a very strange idea of the kind of priority which we give to such matters.
Many of us have misgivings about the Bill and have had them from the start.

We fear that Parliament is being asked to give its blessing to a body which will make a complete mess, or continue to make a complete mess, of traffic control and circulation in this part of London. Unfortunately, it has been accepted by the Minister of Transport, who ought really to have gone round with a placard saying, "No greens in the Pink Zone."

Mr. Speaker: Order. Discussion on these Lords Amendments is restricted to that which arises on each specific Amendment. We must not travel round London with the Minister.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: I think that I have made by point, Mr. Speaker.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18.—(ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS OF THE AUTHORITY.)

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 24, at end insert:
but the Authority shall not, by virtue of paragraph (f) of this subsection, carry on activities with a view to making the best use of any of their assets except with the consent of the Minister.

Mr. W. Vane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment also was made by the Select Committee. Clause 18 was subject to considerable debate in this House on Report. I can remember criticism of the width of the powers being given to the Authority. I hope, therefore, that the House will approve this Amendment which, to a certain extent, limits the exercise of the last power set out in paragraph (f) because the Authority, by the Amendment,
shall not, by virtue of paragraph (f) of this subsection, carry on activities with a view to making the best use of any of their assets except with the consent of the Minister.
The Amendment falls very much within the spirit of the criticism of the Clause which was voiced on Report. I do not think that it hampers the Authority at all in its straightforward duties, but it does mean that, where the Authority wishes to exercise the powers given under paragraph (f), which can, so it is represented, go a bit wide of the purposes of Parliament, it will have to come to the Minister


and ask for consent. I do not think that that will create difficulty for the Authority, and I believe that the House will approve.

Mr. John Hall: I want further explanation of the full implications of the Amendment. As I read the subsection, by paragraphs (a) to (e) the Authority is given power to provide various facilities. Does the Amendment mean that, if the Authority wants to sell or only to rent some of the properties which come into its possession after vesting date, it will be able to do so only with the consent of the Minister? Does it mean that if in the course of the exercise of its powers the Authority provides various equipment and facilities such as vehicles, plant and machinery or accommodation of various kinds as laid down in paragraph (e), and then at a later stage it wishes to dispose of those assets in some way, it will have to ask the Minister's permission? Exactly how far does the restriction go?
Will the Minister require the Authority to consult him about the comparatively minor day-to-day ways of disposing of or properly using its assets which are not referred to specifically in paragraphs (a) to (f), or will the Authority be given guidance about the transactions in regard to which the Minister will expect to be consulted?

Mr. Mellish: I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary intends to reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall). As we on this side understand it, the Authority will already have more than enough to do under the Bill as it is now presented to us. The Amendment is a necessary safeguard. Paragraph (f) includes the words—
to carry on all such other activities as it may appear to the Authority to be requisite …
That could be fairly wide, the sort of thing which I should expect to horrify the hon. Member for Wycombe. The Authority might, perhaps, think it would be a good thing to have a betting shop in some part of its premises.
As I read it, the Amendment means that, in regard to anything the Authority wishes to do which is not specifically referred to in the Bill, it will have to ask the Minister's permission. It will

have more than enough to do with the assets it has and its various activities and trading under the Bill already, without having to bother the Minister very much. I gather that the intention is that, in regard to anything else which the Authority might reasonably wish to do, it must obtain Ministerial sanction. Surely, that is quite right.

Mr. Vane: The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has given the reply which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) was seeking. As I understand it, the qualification is designed to apply to the second half of paragraph (f). Having in mind the criticisms voiced earlier, I expected it to be welcomed by the House. It is not intended to apply to the routine duties which the Authority will carry out and which, broadly, are described in the earlier provisions. It is intended to apply if the Authority, for some reason or another, wants to go a good deal wider than is comprehended by the sort of picture of its future which most of us here have today.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19.—(POWER OF THE AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE LAND COMPULSORILY UNDER TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT, 1947.)

Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 17, leave out subsection (2).

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment does not alter the meaning of the Bill in any way. It comes to be moved now because, since the Bill was drafted, the Land Compensation Act, 1961, has reached the Statute Book. The Act consolidates the 1919 Act and certain other enactments, and in so doing applies the rules of determining compensation to all compulsory acquisitions, irrespective of the kind of authority acquiring the land. The Act no longer limits compensation rules to acquisition by certain bodies, as did the 1919 Act, but applies them to any compulsory acquisition. There is thus no longer any need for this subsection to remain in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22.—(GRANT, DURATION AND REVOCATION OF LICENCES UNDER PRECEDING SECTION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 5, leave out "is" and insert "are".

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Authority is plural, and in this case it was printed as being singular. I feel that we should be consistent.

Mr. John Hall: I do not think that that we can let my hon. Friend get away with it as easily as that. After all, a great deal often hangs on one small word—often the difference between plural and singular.
This is the great problem of the collective noun. Do we say that the company is or that the company are? Is the Authority singular or plural? Are we to say authorities are "and" the Authority are"? It does not sound quite right. Are we to have Amendments to change other Clauses in the Bill? In Clause 18 there are the words "the Authority render". There we have the plural. The same thing applies to Clause 19.
Are we right in this? Should not we amend those as well and turn them into the singular? Are we right in accepting this Amendment without further thought? We do not want to have to come back to change a number of things from singular to plural. Is my hon. Friend sure that this is the right approach to the problem?

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 23.—(POWER OF COURT TO RESTRAIN REVOCATION OF LICENCES UNDER SECTION 21.)

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 46, leave out "that section" and insert "those subsections".

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is similar to the last, in that we are deleting a singular and inserting a plural, but the circumstances are quite different and I will try to explain. This also is a drafting Amendment and is consequential upon one made by the Select Committee of the House of Commons. That Committee

inserted an additional subsection (2) to Clause 17 and made a consequential change to Clause 23 in line 43, where the words "section seventeen" were replaced by reference to subsections (1) and (3). However, a consequential Amendment to line 46 was not changed in the same way and this Amendment puts that right in order to make the Clause read consistently.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26.—(MARKET BYELAWS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 29, leave out from "of" to end of line 32 and insert:
preservatives, accelerators or retarders as appear to the Authority so be inflammable or any such specified preservative, accelerator or retarder as so appears;

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Perhaps it would be clearest and simplest if we discussed also the two succeeding Amendments, which appear to hang together.

Mr. Speaker: By all means.

Mr. Vane: Clause 26, in referring to market byelaws, has particular regard to fire risks. These Amendments spring from representations made by the London County Council about fire risks. The Clause originally referred to
… insecticides or other substances used for preventing deterioration in the condition of produce …
But from the fire prevention angle it was thought preferable to be more specific in the Bill about the storage of other substances which might well be found in some quantity on market premises. One lives and learns. I did not realise, for instance, that when bananas are ripening they give off a certain gas, and that it is possible in order to hasten ripening to "prime the pump," as it were, and encourage the ripening process by using a little of this gas, which is likely to be stored on the premises.
I hope it will meet with the House's approval, therefore, that we should amend this provision, so that possible fire risks may be better met. The words
preservatives, accelerators or retarders


may seem, perhaps, to go into unnecessary detail, but since, apparently, bananas can be so dangerous at a certain stage of ripening, I feel that perhaps this is a technical matter where we should follow the advice given to us and accept these words.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: This is a purely technical point, but could my hon. Friend explain what happens to the insecticides? As I understand the Amendment, we are being asked to alter virtually the whole of the original purpose of this subsection, which referred to insecticides. "Preservatives" apparently includes "insecticides". Are they not inflammable and in any case, since when was insecticide a preservative? It does not make sense to me.

Mr. Vane: My right hon. Friend is right. Here, the word "preservatives", according to the definition, is intended to include insecticides. If there are rare circumstances where one has insects but not insecticide, I do not imagine that the produce would remain preserved. It is clearly in the interest of preservation of the produce in its broadest sense.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Does that mean that one preserves the insects as well?

Mr. John Hall: I rise to support this Amendment. We should congratulate their Lordships on the care and scrutiny given to this Bill and for making this subsection much clearer than it was. It is not the first time that they have brought the keen scrutiny of able minds to bear on Bills which have, perhaps, gone through the House of Commons rather rapidly and with examples of careless draftsmanship. On the Report stage of the Bill in this House I quoted from Iolanthe. Hon. Members may remember another passage:
The House of Peers, throughout the war,
Did nothing in particular,
And did it very well;
Yet Britain set the world ablaze
In good King George's glorious days.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: Does my hon. Friend also recall,
The House of Lords makes no pretence
To intellectual eminence.
Nor scholarship divine."?

Mr. Hall: I agree. Their Lordships are very unassuming people. They work very hard in examining Bills in detail.

Mr. Speaker: This discussion relates to preservatives, including insecticides, and on it we should refrain from discussion of the virtues or otherwise of another place.

Mr. Hall: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I will turn to the point. Their Lordships also use the words "accelerators" and "retarders". I thought that we might be able to find better words. I might wish to accelerate the business of the House in order to get this Bill through, while others might wish to retard it.
That is my only criticism, but I have one observation to make on my hon. Friend's speech and his reference to bananas. In view of the very dangerous properties of bananas, I trust that at no time will they be brought into this Chamber. The conflict between the two types of gas might be dangerous.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 34.—(THE COVENT GARDEN TRAFFIC COMMITTEE.)

Lords Amendment: In page 32, line 25, leave out from "Authority" to end of line 27 and insert:
, such number of persons appointed by the Authority, being officers thereof, as may be determined from time to time by the Authority, and such number of other persons so appointed, not being less than nine nor more than twelve, as may be so determined.

Mr. Soames: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I take at the same time the next two Amendments, which are consequential. The Clause provided that the traffic committee should consist of the managing director of the Authority as chairman and from nine to twelve other members appointed by the Authority who are to be traffic experts. The purpose of these Amendments and of later Amendments to Clause 35 and the Fourth Schedule is to ensure the closest possible liaison between the Authority and its three statutory advisory committees. It has always been our intention that the Authority and its three


committees should work, as it were, in partnership. For this reason, we provided that the managing director, who is, of course, a member of the Authority, should be a member and should be chairman of its three committees.
It might happen that the managing director was away on business elsewhere and not able to attend the committee. We felt it right, therefore, to widen the scope and not limit membership to the managing director, so that the Authority can ensure that when these bodies meet there will always be a member of the Authority present. This will make for the good working of the Authority, otherwise part of its function might be nullified.

Mr. John Hall: We are considering an addition to an important committee, the Covent Garden traffic committee. I know that one unkind definition of committees is that they consist of the unfit drawn from the unwilling to do the unnecessary. That is certainly not the case with the Covent Garden traffic committee, which will have an important task to fulfil. The Clause specifies that certain of the persons nominated to the committee must be traffic experts.
I have two questions to ask my hon. Friend. First, how many officers will be nominated? Why is not a restriction placed on the number of officers of the Authority to be elected or nominated to the committee? Secondly, will they in each case be experts in traffic problems? I should have thought it necessary to restrict the numbers, otherwise it could well happen that the Authority, by virtue of its power to nominate officers to the committee, could outnumber all the other nominated members. That would not necessarily be desirable. It is essential that these people should have expert knowledge of traffic problems.

Mr. Mellish: I believe that the Minister is right. The Amendment will ensure that representation from the management side is not confined to the Chairman. If the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) looks at subsection (1), he will see that it specifies the membership of the traffic committee and that by subsection (2), seven of the twelve members will represent certain named authorities, by whom they will be

nominated. I am quite happy about the Amendment.

Mr. John Hall: I do not think that the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has studied the Amendments clearly. The Amendment to line 25 goes on to say
such number of persons appointed by the Authority, being officers thereof, as may be determined from time to time".
That does not seem to me to limit the number in any way.

11.45 a.m.

Mr. Soames: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) that the Amendment could he read as he suggested so that the Authority may appear to be swamping the committee, as it were, with its own officers. That, however, is not the object. The intention was that the managing director of the Authority should be chairman of the committees. It would be disadvantageous if we did not provide for somebody else to attend in the absence of the managing director. The object is to have on the committee a member of the Authority, whether the managing director or not. The substitute for the managing director will not be a traffic expert any more than the managing director himself. The object of the Amendment is not to increase the representation of the Authority on the committee, but to ensure that the Authority is represented on it.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Before we part with the Amendment, which seems to me to be sound, the attention of the House should be drawn to the rather curious English which we are now perpetuating in the Statute Book. If my right hon. Friend looks at the Amendment in line 39, he will find that from the words "no person", we are inflicting upon the Statute Book a double negative. Although it may be good, common practice, it is not usually part of the Queen's English. One ought in fairness to say that the Amendment should have been written to provide that
any person appointed to be a member shall be
rather than the cumbersome wording of
no person shall be … neither … nor …".

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 35.—(THE COVENT GARDEN MARKET WORKERS COMMITTEE.)

Lords Amendment: In page 33, line 11, leave out from "Authority" to end of line 13 and insert:
, such number of persons appointed by the Authority, being officers thereof, as may be determined from time to time by the Authority, and such number of other persons so appointed, not being less than five nor more than ten, as may be so determined.

Mr. Soames: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Here again, I suggest that we might take at the same time the next two Amendments, also relating to Clause 35, which are consequential. This is a matter concerning the workers' committee. The first of these Amendments changes the proposed number of members and fulfils the promise which I gave to the House when we last considered the Bill that I would consult the Trades Union Congress and the Transport and General Workers' Union about the membership of the workers' committee and, if necessary, have an Amendment put down in the House of Lords. That was done with the agreement of the unions to allow between five and ten workers' representatives to serve on the workers' committee instead of the original five. The change is necessary to ensure that all interests are covered.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 33, line 30, at end insert:
, and the Workers Committee may of their own motion make to the Authority representations on any matter arising or appearing to the Committee to be likely to arise out of an exercise or performance, or a proposed exercise or performance, of the Authority's powers or duties, being a matter appearing to the Committee to affect, or to be likely to affect, the interests of such workers as aforesaid; and it shall be the duty of the Authority to take into consideration any representation made to them by the Committee (whether on a matter on which consultation is sought under this subsection or of the Committee's own motion).

Mr. Soames: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment fulfils another promise which I gave to the House, that

I would put down an Amendment to provide that there should be here a two-way traffic, so to speak; that the workers' committee should be empowered to make recommendations to the Authority on matters affecting the interests of those it represents, and that the Authority should be bound to take them into consideration. It has been drawn after consideration with the T.U.C.

Mr. Mellish: I should like to thank the Minister personally for the way in which he has carried out the promise he made when we were discussing this in this House some time ago. Since then I have met the workers' side, and the right hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that they are grateful for the way he received them and Mat these Amendments have now been made.
When the Bill has become an Act and the Authority is working, then, whether we like it or not, we shall want it to work well, and there will have to be a good deal of co-operation between both sides. This Lords Amendment and the previous ones have done much to allay suspicion, and I should like to put it on record that I am very grateful.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 42, line 36, at end to insert new Clause A.

New Clause A.—(RESTRICTION ON THE USE OF STORAGE FACILITIES.)

"Nothing in this Act shall authorise the Authority to provide outside the Covent Garden Area facilities for the making of contracts for the sale or exchange of horticultural produce or any other market facilities, and the Authority shall not permit the use of any storage facilities which may be provided by them outside the Area, or of any premises in which storage facilities are so provided by them, for the purpose of the making of such contracts or of other dealing in horticultural produce."

Mr. Soames: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This new Clause was inserted by the Select Committee in another place to meet a point made in a petition by the City of London, which was concerned to ensure that there should be no trading in any storage premises which the Authority might control outside the market area. As the House knows, it was never the Government's intention that trading should be allowed to develop in those storage premises. Indeed, the


fundamental object of the Bill is to concentrate the trading into a single compact market precinct, but while this was the purpose as the Bill left this House after its Third Reading, the subsequent examination of it revealed this possible loophole.
There was to be this annex outside the area, and it was felt that there might be a possible danger that trading might be carried out from that annex, in addition to its fulfilling the function which was always envisaged for it, namely, the storage of bulk produce, empties, and the like. This Lords Amendment was put in to ensure that it would not be used as a place of trading.

Mr. Doughty: This new Clause is on a very different basis from that of the other Amendments inserted by the other place. This is entirely a new matter, not in any way an addition to or variation of the wording of the old Bill. It is an extraordinary Clause. For a reason which is quite beyond me, a Clause dealing with storage facilities comes into being immediately after a Clause dealing with provisions relating to the service of documents, necessarily a technical matter, and immediately before another Clause which says that
this Act shall be deemed to be an enactment
which has been in force since 1947.
They may be two very important matters, but they are totally unrelated to this new Clause. Even if we were to agree with it, it would be quite out of place there in the Bill where it is proposed to put it. Apart, however, from the question of where it is to be put in the Bill, and the finding of a more suitable place for it in the Bill, it will have an effect on the trading which actually takes place in Covent Garden.
I can understand what I suppose to have been at the back of the mind of somebody, whether it was the Select Committee or the City of London, in drafting the Clause. It is to say that the place for the bulk storage will not be used as a place where a salesman stands beside his business selling to people. In my view, however, that is very likely to happen, because I do not agree with those who apparently think that they are to change the whole system of the market where they have been used the whole time to selling not by sample but by

bulk, and buying by bulk and seeing what they buy. This new Clause may suit the lawyers, but it will undoubtedly lead to a tremendous number of infringements, since trading in the market is not done by sample, but by bulk.
Let us look at an instance of an ordinary commercial sale which may occur at the storage premises even if this Clause is agreed. A greengrocer may want to buy some potatoes. He goes to someone whom he knows in the market. He says, "Have you any potatoes for sale?". The salesman says, "Yes, I have, at so much a cwt." The buyer is perfectly entitled to say, "I want to see what I am buying." The salesman says, "Come over here with me and I will show you where these things are." It would be perfectly likely then that the buyers would say, "I will buy." That is when the contract is made. Up to that moment there have been only negotiations.
If this Clause goes through the prospective buyer will have to say, "Thank you for showing me. We will now go back to Covent Garden or to your office and there I will tell you that I am going to buy." But will he? If he does not, an offence will be committed against the Clause or against the Authority's regulations. Whether the contract, in those circumstances, would be legally binding or not is an interesting question which I do not propose to deal with now, but there is an argument for saying that the whole contract would be illegal and for saying that the Authority could say, "This contract was illegal according to our regulations," even though it was an ordinary commercial contract.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member must confine himself to something which arises on this new Clause. It seems to me related, unless I have misread it, to premises provided by the Authority for storage facilities provided by the Authority.

Mr. Doughty: With respect, Mr. Speaker, it was entirely to those premises provided by the Authority for the storage in bulk of produce, and provided outside the area, to which I was addressing myself. In fact, in those premises in which the storage takes place a vendor can show his customers goods in bulk, and on many occasions they will want


to enter into contracts about the goods they see in bulk in that place, but if they do they will then be offending against the Authority's regulations, which the Authority presumably will pass under this Clause if it is agreed to.
I am sure that it is not the intention of the Minister and I am sure that it is not the intention of the House that that should be the effect of the new Clause, which we have not had an opportunity to debate before now, and I would ask the Minister to look again at the wording of the Clause. I agree with him that he does not want and that the Authority does not want to see such business transferred to the storage premises, but the wording of the new Clause will have the effect of very much hampering the ordinary trading business of the market in the way in which it is nominally carried on, and it may have more far-reaching effects than perhaps the Minister realised when he or somebody else drafted the Clause.

Mr. John Hall: I rise in support of my hon. and learned Friend's criticisms of this Clause. What this Clause seeks to do is to change the customs and habits of many years. It has long been the established custom and habit of the market for buyers to buy through their inspection in bulk, and, of course, that is one of the reasons why we have this appalling traffic congestion and chaos in the Covent Garden area. This seeks to change that, and I find it a little odd that the Clause should come forward, I suspect with the wholehearted approval of the Opposition Front Bench. I find it odd because in this unholy alliance between the two Front Benches the Opposition Front Bench is really basing its support of the Bill upon the representations made by the trade union concerned that customs and traditions which have been built up in that area for many years should not be changed. And to move the area elsewhere might indeed upset established customs built up over many years.

12 noon.

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. If the hon. Member is perfectly in order, as I gather he is, in developing that argument, I hope that I shall be allowed to answer it and to say why we support

the whole Bill in principle, and to refute this charge.

Mr. Speaker: I have not heard enough from the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) to know yet. I do not understand what some of the words mean and, therefore, I have to listen to the debate a little.

Mr. Hall: I was making the point that the Clause will attempt to change the customs and traditions built up over many years. The Clause is likely to be supported, although the Bill as a whole is being supported by the Opposition for quite different reasons, namely, that hon. Members opposite oppose any change in the tradition and customs.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the motives activating the Opposition in their attitude to the Bill as a whole are reasonably related to discussion of this new Clause.

Mr. Hall: I will have regard to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and come back to some other point which the new Clause raises in my mind.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) has rightly said, when a buyer goes to Covent Garden to make a purchase he will be reluctant in many cases to buy entirely on sample. I know that the custom of buying on sample has spread considerably. It has spread among the very large buyers, but in buying on sample they often do it after inspecting the produce in its growing stage on the farms and agricultural holdings. They know a good deal about their suppliers and they want a lot of information before they are prepared to buy on sample.
These buyers representing large organisations have vast experience. This does not apply to the large majority who buy in Covent Garden. They will wish to see the bulk before they buy. The intending buyer will go to the storage depot where the bulk is stored and, human nature being what it is, if the parties do not actually conclude the transaction in the premises provided by the Authority they will go outside and complete the buying and selling on the pavement. A large number of transactions will be taking place.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: And that will be very dangerous and will cause further traffic congestion.

Mr. Hall: I agree. It is an undesirable development, and it is not intended or desired by the Minister.
Another problem which will arise is perhaps a little wider. If I remember correctly, we were told on Report and Third Reading that if the Authority at a later stage found that the duty laid upon it to rebuild Covent Garden Market adjacent to this site was unduly onerous and it came to the conclusion that it was wrong, it could introduce another Bill in the House to give it power to establish a market elsewhere.
The provision in the new Clause makes this even more difficult, for several reasons. The Authority might choose an area such as, for example, the projected King's Cross site for the storage of produce. It might consider it a suitable place to set up a storage depot of that kind. It might do so with the object in mind of seeing whether or not that would be a suitable place to which at a later stage the entire market might be transferred. It might be a form of pilot scheme. The provision of a bulk storage depot of this kind would be a valuable opportunity for introducing a pilot scheme of that nature.
The new Clause prohibits the Authority from trying out the effect of combining storage with buying. It shackles the Authority considerably in its own efforts, but it will not prevent many transactions taking place outside the immediate control of the Authority and within the immediate precincts of the new depot which the Authority is to set up. It is a great pity that Her Majesty's Government did not accept their Lordships' original decision on this, which would have given the Authority much greater flexibility in dealing with the whole problem.
When I read the Lord Chancellor's speech in another place I was reminded of another quotation from the same very popular opera, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) will no doubt recall. It is also related to the Lord Chancellor and reads:
The Law is the true embodiment
Of everything that's excellent,
And I, my Lords, embody the Law.
It has no kind of fault or flaw,

When one reads the Lord Chancellor's speech one has that impression, and it is a great pity that it has been necessary to introduce this Clause. If the original Amendment first passed by another place had been accepted, this would not have been necessary and the Authority could have had greater flexibility in the proper control and administration of the market.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Before my right hon. Friend replies to the very cogent criticisms of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), I would be glad if he could explain to those of us, who have not studied the matter with the same diligence as my hon. Friend, what kind of sanctions the Authority will have against anybody who may choose to indulge in these transactions within the premises. The Clause states that the Authority will not provide facilities. I take that to mean that the buyer and seller can exchange a contract verbally, having inspected the goods, without the Authority knowing anything about it. This could result in the spread of the market, which it is the purpose of the Bill to prevent.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us what exact sanctions the Authority will possess. This provision in the new Clause is a negative instruction. It instructs the Authority not to provide facilities, but the Authority, if it is to be an effective authority, must have power to prevent higgling within the area provided for storage. What sanctions has the Authority to prevent these transactions taking place in neighbouring houses or premises which are not intended for that purpose?

Mr. Turner: In supporting my hon. Friends, I would point out that the Clause actually encourages the setting up of an alternative market when it says that the Authority should not provide facilities for carrying on business transactions. I, too, do not pretend to be a complete expert on every line of the Bill, but I do not recollect any restriction in it on firms outside the market area itself. In other words, in the provision of any storage facilities which the Authority may set up there is no restriction to prevent somebody setting up offices in the immediate vicinity of those facilities and carrying out the activities of marketing in that vicinity. The Clause


seems to me to be doing just the opposite to what the Bill is intended to carry out.

Mr. Channon: I also am not an expert on every line of the Bill, but it seems to me that to get the new Clause into full focus we must discover what "facilities" mean in its context.
"Facilities" is defined in the interpretation Clause, Clause 54. There, we see:
'market facilities' has the meaning assigned to it by subsection (1) of section sixteen of this Act".
One of the troubles facing us is that when we look at Clause 16 (1) we read:
On and after the vesting day it shall be the duty of the Authority to provide within the Covent Garden Area facilities … for the conduct of a market …".
What could be vaguer or more inexplicit than that? There is no way to define it properly.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), with his great assiduity in studying the Bill, will have noticed that if one seeks a definition of "storage facilities" one is referred to Clause 16 (3), which says:
It shall be the duty of the Authority to provide, so soon as practicable, adequate facilities … for the storage of horticulture produce.
The Clause is very vague.
My hon. Friend, however, places the House in a real difficulty. After having heard the cogent arguments addressed by him, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan), no doubt the House will wish to alter the Clause. That puts us in an awkward position. It would mean the abandonment of the Bill. We cannot amend it, and if we now drop it, the whole elaborate process will have to be gone through again. I am sure that the last thing my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe wants to see is the abandonment of the Bill after the study and care he has devoted to it. I hesitate to think that my hon. Friend's efforts have been wasted and that we want at the last moment to lose the Bill. Will he tell us what course of action he would recommend to those of us who feel deeply, as I do, that his arguments ought to command the respect and attention of the Minister and the House in general?

Mr. John Hall: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) for everything that he has said. I agree completely with all his arguments. He has drawn attention to a very real difficulty which faces the House. Perhaps we might have your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on this. What would happen if the House decided that the Clause as drafted did not really meet the requirements which many of us have in mind?

Mr. Speaker: There is no need to waste the hon. Member's time about it. The Question which I put was "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment". That refers to the Clause as a block. The House has the opportunity of agreeing to it or rejecting it.

Mr. Hall: May I ask for further guidance, Mr. Speaker? That would not mean, I trust, that if we rejected the Amendment the Bill as a whole would be affected? May I take it that the Bill would still go forward although we rejected the new Clause?

Mr. Speaker: If the House were to reject the Amendment, no doubt the House would, by the appropriate procedure, state its reasons, and then the Bill, plus the reasons in respect of the rejection of the Amendment, would go back to another place.

Mr. Hall: In that case, I am very tempted to suggest that we ought to ask their Lordships to look at the Clause again. After all, a great deal of time has been spent in close study of the Bill. A number of different recommendations have been made. The Runciman Committee spent a great deal of time on the subject, and not all of its recommendation have been accepted or embodied in the Bill, which, in some respects, is a pity.
Therefore, it would be a pity—I am sure the House will agree—if in a moment of haste, because we wanted to finish the Bill today, we spoilt what might otherwise be a reasonably good Bill—subject to certain mental reservations which I have about it—for want of giving their Lordships an opportunity to consider it again. I hope that when the matter is put to the House we shall consider very seriously whether we should not reject the Clause as it now


stands and send it back for their Lordships to think about it again.

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Mellish: To continue the unholy alliance, I want to make it clear why I support the new Clause. It is a very wise and sensible one. Hon. Gentlemen opposite claim that they have read the Bill carefully and studied the debates and know all about it. I am surprised that they do not understand the very simple reasons why the new Clause comes into being.
First, we had the problem of whether or not there should be an annex for this purpose. At one stage, there was to be an annex in a certain place. It was petitioned against and there were terrible rows, and eventually the proposal was withdrawn. The Bill now says that the Authority will be allowed, as the Authority, to provide or obtain facilities outside its own area for the purpose of storage, and we hope that the bulk will be very much reduced as the months and years go by.
We have already said that we think that the Authority will have tremendous trouble in any case wherever it tries to put up or allow for any annex for these facilities. If it does it inside London there will be a tremendous quarrel with the borough council in the area. That being so, and with the knowledge that the Authority is already handicapped, we can well understand why the City of Landon comes forward with a petition—far be it from me normally to support the City of London as an authority, but I do so on this occasion—and says "In any case, if facilities are allowed we do not want any trading there, because if that happens you make another market."
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have complained about the traffic. If it is proposed to have in the Metropolitan area a considerable number of little markets, the situation will become disastrous. The traffic congestion will be very bad indeed. Consequently, it is suggested by the City of London that if these facilities are to be granted, no trading shall be attached to them.

Mr. John Hall: I feel that the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has not paid to the speeches which have

been made by my hon. Friends the attention which he normally pays to speeches from this side of the House. If he had listened with care he would have understood that what we fear is that the desired result will not be achieved despite what is proposed, and that, despite what the Clause says, it will not be possible to prevent a market springing up within the immediate vicinity of the new depot, which will be more dangerous from the point of view of traffic chaos than if trading were allowed inside the premises. Although we do not quarrel with the intention of the Clause, we believe that because of the way in which it is worded it will not achieve the desired result. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address himself to that point.

Mr. Mellish: I apologise to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) for not having understood his argument. I usually do, because he speaks so very clearly. On this occasion, he must have confused me. I can only say that unless we have a Clause of this kind the storage facilities which will be provided under the Measure as it stands may become a trading centre outside the normal trading centre. It is necessary to have a restrictive Clause of this kind to state that trading shall not be carried on in the place where the facilities are provided. Consequently, I feel that the Clause is right. The City of London has understandably put forward a petition because of its worries about this as the Bill now stands.
My hon. Friends and I will support the proposed Clause because we feel that the Minister has given adequate reasons why such a Clause should be embodied in the Bill.

Mr. Soames: I hope very much that the little discussion which has taken place about what would happen if the House were to reject the Amendment will be shown to have been purely an academic one in as much as I think that I can help to clear up what I sincerely believe to be nothing but misconceptions in the minds of certain of my hon. Friends.
I think I can sum up what was felt by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) and other hon. Friends of mine. They said that they were in agreement with what we were trying to do, but they felt that the Clause


would not succeed in its objective. What we are trying to do is to ensure that the storage facilities do not become also a centre of trading. When we were drawing up the Bill we never thought that there was any doubt about this. We always thought that storage facilities would be provided and that there would be no trading there.
We thought that the extent to which the storage facilities were used would depend very largely, in fact almost entirely —I am talking about bulk storage—upon the extent to which it was possible to introduce sales by samples in the market as time went on. We thought that the object of the Authority would be to maximise the trade and not minimise it, and we thought that if it could not sell by sample, it would not try to sell by sample.
It was put forward as an anxiety that perhaps it was not clear beyond a peradventure that as the Bill stood there could not be some trading from the annex. If they fear that the Bill with this Clause in it might mean that there would still be trading from the annex, what would have happened if the Clause had not been in the Bill? This point was not made earlier in this House, and since it left the House the position has been fortified by the addition of this Clause.
So much for the overall strategic concept, so to speak. What about how it is going to work? How will it work, in fact? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) was alarmed by the thought that there might be a lot of trading. I think he will agree that there is less likely to be trading with this Clause in the Bill than without it inasmuch as the Clause prohibits the authority from allowing trading to be carried on in the premises.
Before one considers the argument one has to paint a picture in one's mind of what the storage facilities are. I saw the site where I hoped that it was going to be, at Finsbury. I saw the land and walked over it, and I foresaw enormous covered places where produce would be stored in bulk. I hope that it will be run in a most businesslike fashion. There will be the base where these goods will be stored and they will be called forward by the merchants. The goods will not be on view to the trade.
The whole purpose of selling by sample is to avoid the goods being on view. The purchaser looks at the sample. He may decide that he wants something else. Then he is shown another sample. Even if he were to go to the annex and try to look at the produce he would probably have great difficulty in finding it. The goods will not be presented in such a way as to attract attention. They will be there and will be called forward as required.
I cannot tell how the Authority is going to run the thing. But this does not prohibit a man from having a look at the produce. What it prohibits is the setting up of trading there. My hon. and learned Friend, who is learned in the law, says he thinks that it would be very difficult to decide whether a contract was actually made there or elsewhere.
Thanks to this Clause, this is not going to be a place where the atmosphere will be a trading one. It will be a storage atmosphere. The people concerned will not be salesmen. There will be foremen—men saying where the stuff should be put—and men loading and unloading. The purpose of the Clause is to see that there are no tradesmen or salesmen there. We did not feel this anxiety ourselves. We did not think that this was necessary. In our view, this Clause makes the position clear beyond a peradventure.
We wanted to avoid the annex being used partly for selling produce with the bulk hard by, so to speak. I think it will work. It makes the matter quite clear, and I really cannot accept the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Turner) that the insertion of a Clause saying that the Authority is prohibited from using the premises for trading makes it more likely that the storage facilities would be used for trading.

Mr. Turner: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. All I am saying—I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty)—is that, in my view, we are not going to stop verbal contracts taking place. The only point I was trying to make was that if we actually prohibit trading I can see that trading spreading outside and the matter of verbal contracts spreading. It seems to me more likely to create salesmen


outside. I am with my right hon. Friend in wanting to prohibit trading completely, but what I am saying and what my hon. Friends are saying is that we do not believe that the wording of the Clause so prohibits it.

Mr. Soames: The wording of the Clause quite definitely prohibits it. I do not see what more could be said. The Clause states:
… the Authority shall not permit the use of any storage facilities which may be provided for them outside that area, or of any premises in which storage facilities are so provided by them.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: I think that my right hon. Friend has got down to the nub of things. What I am asking—and I think that this would be echoed by my hon. Friends—is what sanctions and penalties the Authority can impose. That is what we want to know.

Mr. Soames: That is an important point. In the tenancy agreements with the traders the Authority will lease facilities in the annex to the traders, and the traders will use those facilities for storage purposes. It will be incumbent upon the Authority, thanks to this new Clause, to write into the agreement, as in any other agreement reached between landlord and tenant, so to speak, that trading shall not be carried on in the annex.
The sanction will surely be that if a trader breaks his contract the Authority will terminate the tenancy. Indeed, it would be the duty of the Authority to terminate the tenancy in that case. It would say to the trader, "You have broken the terms of the contract and we now propose to terminate it."
I could understand the argument that this was not necessary because it was already inherent in the Bill, and I very much hope that when they consider the matter my hon. Friends will see that it is helping to achieve what we all want, namely, to ensure that trading does not take place in the annexe.

Mr. John. Hall: May I ask my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member requires the leave of the House to speak, I think.

Mr. Hall: I was interrupting my right hon. Friend. I appreciate the point that he has made about the sanc-

tion available if a tenant enters into transactions to sell on premises provided by the Authority for the storage of bulk produce, but that does not deal with the point made by my hon. Friend that many of these transactions can take place immediately outside the premises and outside the control of the Authority altogether. I am sure that I shall get the support of the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) in saying that it is wrong to introduce into legislation something that cannot be carried out.

Mr. Speaker: It is really an abuse to make interventions at such length in circumstances where the hon. Member would require the leave of the House to speak. I hope that he will bear that in mind. It would appear that the Minister had, in fact, sat down. I suspected that that was the position, and it was, in fact, true.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 54.—(GENERAL INTERPRETATION PROVISIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 44, line 34, at end insert:
(2) For the purposes of this Act a building intersected by the circumference of the circle referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the last foregoing section shall be treated as being outside the prohibited area.

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The House will remember that Clause 21 prohibited after a certain date the use of land for wholesale horticultural marketing within "the prohibited area." The prohibited area is defined by Clause 53 as the land surrounding the Covent Garden Area and whose outer boundary is the circumference of a circle with a radius of three-quarters of a mile from a certain junction.
That, of course, does not follow the line of streets but a line drawn, as it were, with a pair of compasses, and it will pass through certain buildings. It is therefore right for us in the interpretation Clause to make certain whether such buildings are inside or outside the restricted area in the same way as when one is shooting on the rifle range and is shooting into the line one must know whether it is into the inner or outer circle. We are proposing that a house through


which this line passes shall not be subject to the restrictions but shall rank as being outside the restricted area. This Amendment is nothing more than a definition. I hope the House will see reason in it and accept it.

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Channon: I wish to ask my hon. Friend two short questions. Has he any idea how many buildings will be affected? That must be already clear from the map. Why is this provision to come in this Clause? It does not seem to be an interpretation, but to be a new point. The Minister might have decided to take the opposite view, that these buildings should be inside the prohibited area rather than outside. I cannot see why this should come in the interpretation Clause. It should be made specifically clear what is inside and what is outside. Then we should not need a new subsection which seems not to be interpreting anything but making an entirely new point.

Mr. Vane: I think this is interpreting. It is defining what is and what is not the prohibited area, and the buildings through which the line passes. I am told that approximately fifty buildings will be involved.

Question put and agreed to.

Fourth Schedule.—(CONSTITUTION OF THE COVENT GARDEN MARKET MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE.)

Lords Amendment: In page 49, to leave out lines 28 to 32 and insert:
shall consist of a chairman (who shall be the person who is for the time being the managing director of the Authority), such number of persons appointed by the Authority, being officers thereof, as may be determined from time to time by the Authority, and fourteen other persons so appointed.
2.—(1) Of the members of the Committee other than the chairman and those who are officers of the Authority—

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is exactly similar to two previous Amendments dealt with by my right hon. Friend when he explained to the House that the composition of these three Committees will be enlarged by further representation of the Authority in order to allow for continuity of

operation. As the House has already accepted this change in regard to the workers' and transport committees, I hope it will approve of this similar proposal in regard to the management committee.

Question put and agreed to.

LAND DRAINAGE BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 7.—(ASCERTAINMENT OF ANNUAL VALUE.)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 42, at end insert:
(7) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section, where the annual value of any land for the purposes of any drainage charge would include a fraction of a pound, the fraction shall, if greater than ten shillings, be treated as one pound and shall in any other case be disregarded.

12.34 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment simplifies the administrative work of river boards by allowing them when making assessments for drainage charges to follow the usual procedure under the Rating and Valuation Act which allows assessments to be rounded up or down to the nearest pound. As it has been represented to us during the course of our discussions that the provisions of the Bill involve a considerable amount of work for river boards, I hope that the House will accept this Amendment, which is an effort to make their task simpler.

Mr. Frederick Willey: We accept this Amendment as a sensible provision. There is no question of our opposing it.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 14.—(ASSESSMENT OF DRAINAGE CHARGE ON OWNERS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 16, to leave out from "by" to end of line and insert
or allowed to him under this section".

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is designed to clarify one point. In the Bill we provide that owners in certain circumstances can collect the drainage charges from occupiers on behalf of the Authority, in which case they would be allowed the 10 per cent. allowance, which is usual under such procedures. The Amendment makes it clear that if they do so they are entitled to collect the full amount from the occupier. We were told that the wording gave rise to some doubt.

Mr. Frederick Peart: We accept this Amendment and recognise that the owners should be able to collect the full amount of the drainage charge from the occupier. We think that this is a sensible provision and have no wish to delay it.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In line 27, at end insert:
(5) A river board shall send a copy of any notice served on them under subsection (4) of this section to the owner of the hereditament to which the notice relates.

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
During our earlier discussions we simplified the procedure as far we could for the assessment and collection of drainage charges. It can happen that in certain circumstances an occupier is allowed an option. He can opt out and opt in again by this simple procedure. This Amendment provides that where that option is taken advantage of the river board shall send a copy of the notice to the owner so that he shall know exactly where he stands.

Mr. Peart: As the Parliamentary Secretary said, we had some discussion on this earlier. It was agreed that we should have a simplification of the present arrangements. We accept that this Amendment will enable more flexibility, that the occupier has an option which is satisfactory and the river board

should send a copy of the arrangements which have been made.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 18.—(PERFORMANCE BY RIVER BOARD OF FUNCTIONS OF INTERNAL DRAINAGE BOARD.)

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 21, at end insert:
(6) (a) The Minister shall by regulations provide for the payment by a river board, subject to such exceptions or conditions as may be specified in the regulations, of compensation to any officer or servant of that board who suffers loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments which is attributable to an order made under subsection (2) of this section or anything done in pursuance of any such order.
(b) Different regulations may be made under this subsection in relation to different classes of persons.
(cRegulations made under this subsection may include provision as to the manner in which and the persons to whom any claim for compensation by virtue of this subsection is to be made, and for the determination of all questions arising under the regulations.
(d) Regulations made under this subsection shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is somewhat different from the Amendments we have so far discussed. It empowers the Minister to make regulations so that river boards shall compensate any person for loss of employment or earnings where the petition for the establishment or the re-establishment of an independent drainage board is successful. This is a very remote chance, but nonetheless, where it happens this would give employees of river boards certain rights. We are giving river boards a new power. If the Amendment is accepted it will mean that where that new power is exercised there will be a statutory right of compensation to any employee who may thereby be affected.

Mr. Willey: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Burden, who proposed the Amendment in another place. Any noble Lord who made a new suggestion in dealing with this Bill showed remarkable ingenuity. I congratulate him on having


done so. I also congratulate the Government on having accepted the Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary in another place left it to their Lordships; he said that if there were no objections he was prepared to accept it. This is an admirable rule which I hope that the Government will follow in future.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

New Clause A.—(DRAINAGE RATES— FRACTIONS OF A POUND.)

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 21, at end insert new Clause A:
Where the value on which a drainage rate is assessed would, apart from this section, include a fraction of a pound, the fraction shall, if greater than ten shillings, be treated as one pound and shall in any other case be disregarded.

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It is an exact counterpart to the first Amendment and makes the same procedure applicable to the collection of drainage rates as we have already provided in connection with drainage charges.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 30.—(RESTRICTION ON ERECTION OF STRUCTURES IN, OVER OR UNDER WATERCOURSES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 21, line 40, at end insert:
(3) No person shall erect or alter any structure designed to contain or divert the flood-waters of any part of the main river except with the consent of and in accordance with plans and sections approved by the river board.

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
During our earlier discussions there was considerable force behind the arguments adduced in the House that we should pay more regard to structures not only over watercourses, but also in what are called the Washlands. We discussed the question at some length, and it has been found possible to go some way to help those who felt that insufficient regard had been paid to that problem in the Bill.
There are certain structures which would not be subject to planning pro-

visions in the ordinary sense. We have provided that river boards will have control over the construction of structures
designed to contain or divert the floodwaters
in these Washlands in the same way as they have control over the bridges or structures crossing their main watercourses. I hope that it will go same way to meet the problem, which we accept as being a real problem but which we felt it impossible to deal with in the Bill, as some hon. Members suggested that we ought.

Mr. Peart: I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has accepted the Amendment. There was force in the argument that we must pay more regard to structures over watercourses—he referred to the Washlands—and here the river boards will have control. I accept the argument advanced during the long Committee stage that bridges are covered by the provisions, but here was an exception in this important Clause which deals with the restriction on the erection of structures over or under watercourses. We have tightened up the provisions—meaning that we have improved them—and we are giving the river boards an authority which it is right that they should have.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 33.—(POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORI TIES TO UNDERTAKE DRAINAGE WORKS AGAINST FLOODING.)

Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 9, at end insert:
and section thirty-nine of this Act shall apply in relation to the council as it applies in relation to a drainage board.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
One of the new provisions of the Bill gives local authorities power to undertake certain drainage works against flooding. Having imposed those duties on local authorities, it follows that we ought to see that they have the requisite powers. The powers which we had in mind were those which we have given to drainage boards, since these tasks in a sense are comparable.
Originally, it was intended to rely on the powers in an earlier Statute, but the


drainage boards asked for these powers to be defined more precisely in the Bill. The first draft met a good deal of criticism in the House. In another place, my right hon. Friend provided that the assurances which he had given were implemented and that the notice required before a local authority or a drainage authority exercised its powers of entry was extended. I think that that will meet the approval of the House.
This sentence gives a local authority the same powers as we shall later, I hope, give to drainage boards to carry out these drainage works against flooding which are important and which we should like them to undertake where it is appropriate and practicable for them to do so.

Mr. Peart: This is a very important Amendment, because it emphasises the work of local authorities. While the Bill deals mainly with the work of river boards, there must be a partnership. At all times in our discussions we have stressed that local authorities must work with river boards, and I am glad that it has been suggested in another place, and agreed by the Minister, that we should put into our legislation that powers given to the drainage boards should also be given to local authorities. We accept the Amendment. I hope that the House will accept it.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 38.—(COLLECTION OF DRAINAGE RATES BY OWNERS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 29, leave out from "by" to "which" in line 30 and insert:
or allowed to him under this section

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is an exact counterpart to an earlier Amendment which we have approved. It makes it clear that where an owner acts as the agent of the drainage board and collects drainage rates, he, in his turn, shall be entitled to collect the full amount. There is no doubt that the 10 per cent. allowance is his agency fee for doing that task.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 39.—(POWERS OF ENTRY.)

Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 34, leave out from "after" to "producing".

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It would be convenient to discuss, at the same time, the next Amendment, in line 42, to inserting a new subsection (3). One is consequential on the other.
This Clause was discussed at some length on Report, when it was argued that the provisions for notice of entry were inadequate, particularly in relation to residential land. As I foreshadowed on Third Reading, when I had such difficulty in staying within the rules of order, Amendments have been made to the Bill so that, except in an emergency, seven days' notice will be given for entry on to residential property or on to other land with heavy equipment.
This has been agreed with all concerned. We have also inserted provisions, which were not in the Bill previously, whereby in an emergency they can enter the land without any notice. If the two provisions are added together, they make an improvement to the Bill.

Mr. Willey: We congratulate the Minister on the step which he has taken, which honours an undertaking which he gave with some difficulty on Third Reading. We discussed this matter at some length on a new Clause. It is a provision which ought to be made. There was no question about entry in an emergency, but hon. Members on both sides of the House felt that if notice could be given, it ought to be given. I congratulate the Minister on having persuaded the authorities affected that this is a proper provision to insert into the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 41.—(PAYMENT BY RIVER BOARD OF EXPENSES OF OFFICIAL VISITS, ETC.)

Lords Amendment: In page 27, line 29, leave out "or officer".

Mr. Soames: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a very minor Amendment. The purpose of the Clause is to authorise the payment of expenses to members and officers of river boards for official and courtesy visits being made in the course of their duties. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) will remember that we accepted an Amendment which he himself put down on Report stage, concerned with entertaining and expenses. The proviso in the Clause specifies that the payments must not exceed what would have been payable under Section 113 of the Local Government Act.
This lays down the conditions for the payment of expenses to members of local authorities, but Section 113 does not relate to "officers" of local authorities, and there is, therefore, no purpose in referring to them in the proviso. This Amendment deletes the reference to "officers".

Mr. Willey: I am always greatly obliged to the Government when they correct my drafting.

Question put and agreed to.

First Schedule.—(MINOR AMENDMENTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 34, line 20, at end insert:
8. At the end of subsection (2) of section twenty-nine (which requires drainage boards to determine the annual value of land not assessed to income tax under Schedule A) there shall be added the words "having regard to the annual values, for the purposes of income tax under Schedule A, of comparable land in their district, other than those which have been ascertained by reference to rents fixed by agreements commencing after the end of March, nineteen hundred and forty-six".

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment provides that where a drainage board determines the value of land not assessed to Income Tax under Schedule A for the purpose of levying drainage rates, it will have regard to the values of comparable neighbouring properties, and not base its estimate on any post-war rental values which might be widely out of line with the general level.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 36, line 26, at end insert:

(4) Subsection (2) of that section, except in so far as it requires byelaws to be confirmed by the Minister, and subsections (3) to (7) thereof shall not apply to byelaws made by virtue of section thirty-three of this Act; and subsection (8) of the said section forty-seven shall apply in relation to such byelaws in substitution for section two hundred and fifty-one of the Local Government Act, 1933.

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment ensures that the procedure used by local authorities in making byelaws under this Bill will be the same as that under their ordinary powers, and will not be that which a drainage board would follow.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 43, at end insert
may be given subject to reasonable conditions but.

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It would, I think, be for the convenience of the House if we discussed this together with the following Amendment, in line 52, at end insert
or whether any condition subject to which any consent was given was reasonable.
This Amendment empowers public utilities and similar undertakings to attach reasonable conditions when giving consent to drainage works affecting their property. The Bill amends Section 61 of the 1930 Act, which requires drainage boards to obtain consent before doing work affecting public utilities. The Bill amends this provision so that consents shall not be unreasonably withheld, and arbitration can cover the question whether consent has been unreasonably withheld.
The Amendment is designed to empower public utilities to attach reasonable conditions to their consents, and to provide that such conditions can also be subject to arbitration. It is a tricky point.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 52, after the word last inserted, insert:
(5) The references in the said section sixty-one to the Act of 1930 shall be construed as including references to section forty-five of this Act.

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment, again, is to protect public utilities and similar undertakings against entry on their land by private persons empowered by agricultural land tribunals to carry out improvement work. This does not exempt public utilities from doing their clear ditty, but there is a public safety element involved here, for instance, in the case of railway embankments. I think that the House will see the point of the Amendment, and, I hope, will agree to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 38, line 8, leave out "the end of the subsection" and insert "'river board area'".

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is entirely a question of drafting. It will have the effect of reinstating the definition of "expenses" in Section 10 of the 1948 Act where it has been deleted by the Bill it is no more than a drafting point. The Amendment to paragraph 29 of the First Schedule has the incidental effect of repealing the definition of expenses in Section 10 of the River Boards Act, 1948, which, in fact, we want to stand. Therefore, by changing these words we avoid that deletion being effective.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In line 34, leave out "except in an emergency".

Mr. Soames: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we discuss

with this Amendment, the following one, in line 35, at end insert:
after the words 'shall not' there shall be inserted the words 'except in an emergency, and for the words 'twenty-four hours' there shall be substituted the words 'seven days'".
This Amendment makes the same changes in relation to powers of entry as I have already described in regard to Amendments to page 26, lines 34 and 42. It provides that river boards, except in an emergency, will give at least seven days' notice before they enter residential property as other land with heavy equipment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 38, line 37, to leave out "Minister" and insert "Ministers".

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It will be convenient to discuss, also, the two following Amendments, which have roughly the same effect, in line 39, leave out "Minister" and insert "Ministers", and in line 40, leave out "him" and insert "them".
These are important Amendments, because they concern the making of Orders in such circumstances as changing the constitution of a river board, where the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is involved, as well as that of my right hon. Friend. I therefore hope that the House will think it correct that in this part of the Bill we should have the plural rather than the singular.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

MOTOR VEHICLES (SPEED LIMIT)

12.59 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I beg to move,
That the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limit) Regulations, 1961, dated 29th June, 1961, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.
The First Schedule to the Road Traffic Act, 1960, lays down speed limits for vehicles of certain classes or descriptions, and paragraph 1 (1) of the Schedule provides that for passenger vehicles
having an unladen weight exceeding three tons, or adapted to carry more than seven passengers exclusive of the driver,
the speed limit imposed by Section 24 of the Act on certain types of vehicles, when used on any roads other than motorways, shall be 30 m.p.h. The definition I have just read covers buses, coaches and such miscellaneous vehicles as the 10–12 seater personnel carriers. Smaller passenger vehicles such as cars are not subject to any speed limit on unrestricted roads.
These Regulations amend the First Schedule of the Road Traffic Act by increasing the speed limit of buses, coaches, and so on, from 30 miles an hour to 40 miles an hour, except where the road itself is subject to a speed limit of less than 40 miles an hour. The Regulations will therefore bring into effect the intention of my right hon. Friend the Minister to increase the speed limit for buses and coaches which he announced on 4th May last. His announcement was generally welcomed at the time. I therefore hope that the House will now agree to approve the change made in these Regulations.

1.1 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: I must tell the Parliamentary Secretary straight away that many of us on this side of the House do not approve of these Regulations. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been a change of business today. It was announced rather late in the week. I wish the presentation of these Regulations had been delayed. I wish that they had been brought before the House with another Measure which the Minister has laid, which is to be debated next week. That is the Measure which increases the

size of buses and coaches. Both Measures are related and could properly be discussed together. I recognise that I should be out of order at the moment, through no fault of yours, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I talked about a Measure which is not before the House. However, the two Measures are related.
The trade unions which represent the vast majority of the men who drive buses and coaches are bitterly opposed to these Regulations.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: That is amazing, because most of them already drive at 40 miles an hour.

Mr. Mellish: I am coming on to that. I said that they oppose the Regulations, which increase the permitted speed of coaches and buses to 40 miles an hour. They feel—I agree with them—that raising the speed limit will increase the risk of accidents. We are not convinced that the present speed limit of 30 miles an hour should be raised merely because it is broken in many cases. If the limit is raised to 40 miles an hour, we shall soon be faced with the argument that that limit is being broken and should be raised to 50 miles an hour. It is not a sound argument that the 30 miles an hour limit should be increased merely because some drivers exceed the limit.
It is sincerely believed by the organisations representing bus and coach drivers that the risk of accidents will be increased. It must be remembered that the Regulations specifically deal with buses and coaches which carry, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, more than seven passengers. The emphasis today should be on care and safety rather than on speed when we are talking of large numbers of people. I am also asked to point out to the House, which is very relevant, that if these vehicles are now to travel at the much faster rate, as they certainly will once the limit is raised, the work of conductors will not be made easier but will be made much more difficult.
It is said that the higher speed limit applies only to areas which are not built up. The trouble is that the definition of built-up areas—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Mellish: I was saying that it is argued that the higher speed limit will apply only to areas which are not built up. The definition of built-up areas has changed considerably in the last few years. Many areas are not built up now by definition which in the past were built up; in other words, there are now greater areas in which buses and coaches can travel at this speed. They will be able to travel at 40 miles an hour virtually everywhere. Buses and coaches travelling in the country will certainly proceed at that speed. I gather that many of them will travel at more than that speed.
One argument advanced by the Ministry for increasing the permitted speed is that there will be less overtaking of buses and coaches by private cars. The Parliamentary Secretary did not mention this reason, but he should have done. The Government should give reasons for introducing Regulations of this kind. I understand the view is taken that al present if a coach is travelling at 30 miles an hour in a built-up area it is very difficult for a private motorist, who can go much faster and is allowed to, to overtake. The private motorist finds it dangerous to overtake. I do not think that there is much in that argument. After all, coaches and buses have to stop and pick up passengers and overtaking has to take place in any case. It is not valid to argue on that ground that the increased speed limit is right.
Another aspect which should be considered by the Ministry is that immediately the Government start altering speed limits those who own buses and coaches—some of them being private owners, some of them being nationalised undertakings—will understandably alter their schedules. This will cause a great deal of friction, difficulty and argument. I am not one of those who, because of that, favour no change, but this aspect should be considered by the Ministry. What discussions did the Ministry have with the unions concerned?
We do not believe that the Regulations are necessary. We believe that raising the limit will not make for more safety on the roads. We think that it will make for less safety. We have had no figures from the Ministry—we do not know whether they are available—as to whether the present limit of 30 miles an

hour for buses and coaches has caused accidents. Can the Parliamentary Secretary provide us with any figures? If the Regulations come into force research will certainly be carried out in an effort to compare the present accident rates with what is known in a year's time when the Regulations have been in force for some time.
One of the ironies of the situation is that Regulations concerning speed limits, the size of buses, and so or, come forward all the time. We feel that this should be done in a much more embracing Measure. We should be talking not only about the aspect to which we are confined this morning, because that is all there is before us, but also about many other aspects of road safety. There was a Bill and we should have seen it, but it has been allowed to lapse, although ironically the Government have found time to legislate in respect of betting and gaming and more drinking. They have not found time to deal with road safety, which is extraordinarily odd, even for this Government. We shall get that Bill next Session. I should like to think, even at this late hour, that we could defer raising the speed limit of very large buses and coaches, which carry as many as 60 to 70 passengers. If the Regulations come into force, these vehicles will now travel at well over 40 miles an hour. I cannot believe that this will increase safety on the roads.
Representations have been made to most hon. Members by the Pedestrians' Association, and although I do not always agree with that Association, I think that here it has adopted the right approach. It is stated in the brief that has been sent to all hon. Members, and which the Parliamentary Secretary may have seen, that the Association was told by the Ministry that one of the present troubles was the danger of overtaking by the private vehicle; that when these buses and coaches are not going as fast as the present speed limit allows, it is all very sad for the poor private motorist.
I do not accept that. My experience as a private motorist is that some of our finest drivers are to he found amongst those who drive coaches and buses, and it ill becomes the average private motorist to criticise them. There are the odd exceptions to the rule, but I believe


that the average coach and bus driver sets a perfect example of courtesy on the road. He is always the first to give hand signals, and to wave people on when the road in front is clear. I do not think that we often get that even with the average lorry driver.
I believe these Regulations to be a retrograde step, and we have not been told why this matter is now so 'urgent. I want to register this protest on behalf of those who represent the men who get their living by driving these vehicles, and I say again that we ought to have from the hon. Gentleman a much more detailed explanation of why, at this stage in the crisis on the roads, we should increase the limits.

1.12 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary bring these Regulations before the House at a time when the figures for last year show that public service vehicles were involved in 23,732 accidents causing death or injury, or 65 a day, and when, in those accidents, 17,669 passengers, or 48 per day, were killed or injured. To take more general figures, these Regulations come to us at a time when we know that during the first half of this year the number of accidents has increased by 8 per cent., and when the number of persons seriously injured on the road has increased by 6 per cent.
Is this the right time to increase the hazards on the road? It must be common knowledge—and, if it is not, it ought to be—that to increase a speed limit or to relax its enforcement results in an increase in accidents; and that the reverse is also true. That has been proved again and again.
My hon. Friend has explained that these Regulations increase the speed limit for buses and coaches from 30 miles an hour to 40 miles an hour, except, of course, where the road has a 30 mile an hour limit. We are not today discussing some other regulation that has been laid, but I think that I am in order to mention that, as the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has said, we must bear in mind not only the existing buses to which these Regulations may apply, but those to which they may apply in future. The maximum length of a

bus today is 30 ft., but these Regulations will in future apply to buses 36 ft. long.
To understand what a 36 ft. long bus is like, one has only to think of the London Transport double-decker bus, which is 27 ft. 6 ins. in length. I have no doubt that when taking parties round this House, hon. Members frequently point to the face of Big Ben and say that a London Transport bus will just fit through its face. We shall have to amend our guide patter in future, because these new buses, which will not only be longer but wider, will not fit through the face of Big Ben.
I understand that this increase in size is being sought, not only to accommodate Continental buses touring in this country, but to provide for the new standee buses, in which there will be a large number of standing passengers. If those buses, as well as ordinary buses and coaches, are to travel at up to 40 miles an hour, I cannot think that it will be a contribution to road safety.
My hon. Friend's Department has endeavoured in correspondence to justify these Regulations on several grounds. I know that my hon. Friend takes advice from his Road Safety Committee and that the majority of that Committee's members have supported an increase in the speed limit for buses and coaches from 30 miles an hour to 40 miles an hour but, as the hon. Member for Bermondsey has mentioned, one of them, the Transport and General Workers' Union, objected an behalf of the drivers, while the Pedestrians' Association objected on behalf of the other people who are most particularly concerned in this, the passengers. Drivers and passengers are far more concerned in this problem than are those represented by the other outside associations on this Committee.
My hon Friend has also sought in correspondence to justify this increase by saying that it is right at this stage to bring this matter into line with current legislation before the House. In other words, in his Road Traffic Bill the increased penalties for exceeding the speed limit are very severe. Therefore, as I follow his argument, we should reduce the offence because we are increasing the penalties. To start with, that legislation is not yet before us. Secondly, to say that because we are increasing the


penalties in order to enforce the law we should reduce the offence itself is, in my view, an extraordinary principle.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey mentioned a further argument that has been put forward in favour of these Regulations, and it is one that we have heard very many time. It is that the existing limit is unrealistic; that it is thought by the public to be unreasonable; that, in general, it is broken, and that, therefore, we should so alter the law as to bring it into line with those who break it. I have never thought that argument to carry very much weight.
We are faced, of course, with what I would refer to as the scandal of the non-enforcement of the existing speed limits; they are completely unenforced in the Metropolitan Police area and, in many other areas they are not enforced unless exceeded by 10 miles per hour. The argument that as the existing limit is unrealistic we should increase it by 10 miles an hour to make it realistic, and, therefore, better observed, is completely refuted by the results of increasing the speed limit for commercial vehicles.
When we increased the speed limit for those commercial vehicles from 20 miles an hour to 30 miles an hour, we were told exactly the same thing. It was said that it would be observed. I have here the Road Research Laboratory's Report following on that increase. In the summary it is clearly stated that after a change in the limit, the proportion of heavy commercial vehicles exceeding 30 m.p.h. rose from 45 per cent. to nearly 56 per cent. That is what I argued would happen when that speed limit was increased, and my observations have been, therefore, completely borne out by those figures.
A table in this document shows that whereas a decrease in the speed limit was expected, an increase occurred. Then it states:
… the percentage of heavy commercials exceeding 30 m.p.h. increased after the change in the regulations …
To say now that if we increase the limit for passenger vehicles it will be observed is obviously not correct. That suggestion is a fallacy from start to finish, and there can be no doubt that if the speed limit of passenger vehicles is increased

from 30 m.p.h. to 40 m.p.h. it will mean, generally, speeds of up to 50 m.p.h. and over for those vehicles on the roads.
An argument put forward in support of these regulations is that the design of vehicles has changed since the limit was set many years ago. The design of vehicles may have changed, but the design of the human body has not. One can brake a large vehicle and bring it to a standstill within a short distance if one applies the brakes very fiercely. But if that is done at more than 65 g. one's passengers will be flung forward and injured.
London Transport Executive has fixed the maximum deceleration for London buses at 65 g., but generally buses and coaches comply with 55 g. If that figure is exceeded in deceleration there will be a very great increase in the number of passengers who are injured. At that deceleration a laden bus or coach can draw up in about 150 feet, not taking into account the thinking time, which brings the distance to about 200 feet; that is about twice the distance required by a private car. This is set out in the Highway Code in which it is stated:
…vehicles, other than private cars or small vans, may need twice these distances to pull up on dry roads.
But, of course, it is not the braking capacity of a vehicle with which we are at the moment concerned. It is the deceleration, without the risk of passengers being injured. It is, therefore, no argument to say that design has so improved that we can bring in these regulations.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bermondsey referred to the point about impeding the flow of traffic and overtaking by other cars. We are now going to get a difference on a road on which there is a 40 m.p.h. limit between the speed of heavy commercial vehicles—which will be restricted to 30 m.p.h.—and that of the buses and coaches, which will be restricted to 40 m.p.h. We were told at the time of the increase in the speed limit for heavy vehicles that we were bringing them to a level speed and, therefore, there would be an easier flow of traffic with less overtaking.
Assuming that passenger vehicles will observe the new 40 m.p.h. limit on a road which is restricted to 40 m.p.h., are we going to assume that private vehicles will not overtake them and exceed the


limit? In my view, that is assuming too much of human nature. Obviously, there will be overtaking at a greater speed, as a result of these regulations, on roads with a speed limit of 40 m.p.h.
Then, of course, in 12 months' time the Minister will say that passenger vehicles are proceeding on the roads at 40 m.p.h. while heavy commercial vehicles are restricted to 30 m.p.h. "We cannot have these different speeds," the Minister will say, and he will ask for the speed of commercial vehicles to be increased to 40 m.p.h. That is almost bound to come if we pass these regulations.
Finally I forecast, without the least possible doubt, that as a result of these Regulations there will be an increase in the number of accidents in which public vehicles are involved.

1.25 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Very substantial reasons have been given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) why we should not adopt these Regulations and I should like to add a few words in support of their argument.
It is regrettable that the Government should have brought forward these Regulations at this time. It is particularly unfortunate that they should have brought them forward at such short notice, following on the arrangement of today's business. This is a matter in which a great many hon. Members are interested and in which the public are vitally affected. It is most regrettable that the Minister should have attempted to bring it forward on a Friday, when there is not a full House and hon. Members have not an opportunity of considering the subject on its merits.
I share the view of the hon. Member for Crosby; that the only effect of these Regulations will be to increase the number of accidents on the roads, and I oppose it on that ground. The public are getting more than tired—they are getting shocked—at the continual and increasing carnage on the roads. They are appalled at the failure of the Government to proceed with the Road Traffic Bill, which has been promised over and over again, and on reliance of

which other Measures have been brought forward by the Government.
It seems shocking, in the absence of the Road Traffic Bill—which has now been postponed until next Session—that the House should be asked to increase the speed limit for coaches and buses on roads other than in built-up areas. In connection with built-up areas, the proposed new speed limit will apply, owing to the restricted definition of "built-up area", in a good many parts of the country which are inhabited sufficiently to make vehicles travelling at 40 m.p.h. very dangerous.
I see that the Minister shakes his head, but everyone using the reads knows that a major cause of accidents is speed in built-up and semi-built-up areas. I entirely agree with everything said on this subject by the hon. Member for Crosby.

Mr. John Hall: In saying that it is an accepted fact that the cause of the majority of accidents is speed, would the hon. Gentleman quote the figures from the accident statistics which show that speed is by far the greatest factor in causing accidents?

Mr. Fletcher: I do not have the figures with me, but I should have thought that no one would dispute that speed is a major factor in the cause of a great many accidents. I have read all kinds of statistics in which speed is explained as being the cause of various accidents. In any case, speed is nearly always a contributory factor. A great many accidents would not have occurred if the speed had been lower.

Mr. John Hall: But it is different from saying that the majority of accidents, or the largest proportion of them, are due to excessive speed. It is true that in some accidents speed is a contributory factor, but by no means in the majority of cases.

Mr. Fletcher: I am not so much concerned about the proportion. I am concerned to reduce the number of accidents, because the number of people killed and injured on the road is appalling. I am shocked to think that the Government are introducing these Regulations which propose to do something which the hon. Member for Crosby said is calculated to increase the number of accidents. That is the view I take.
It is said that the 30 m.p.h. speed limit is unrealistic because that limit is not enforced and because a great many vehicles exceed it. It is inevitable, therefore, if the limit is increased from 30 m.p.h. to 40 m.p.h., that there will still be increases over and above the permitted speed limit.
It is inevitable, too, that if we have one speed limit for commercial vehicles and another for coaches and buses there will be a measure of overtaking which would not occur if we had a uniform speed limit. There is everything to be said for a uniform speed limit for all large vehicles on any road, instead of a variety of speed limits which must involve one of two things. It must involve either that some of those vehicles will exceed the permitted limit, or an increased amount of overtaking. Both of those things are dangerous, particularly with the roads in the condition in which they are today.
We have heard that these Regulations are opposed by the union which represents the drivers. It is opposed by the passengers—it must make travel in buses more difficult—and, above all, it is opposed by the general public because it will make conditions on the roads more dangerous.
In view of these objections which have been raised on both sides of the House, and in view of the circumstances in which these Regulations were brought before us, I hope that the Minister will do the sane and reasonable thing and withdraw them, in the face of the opposition that they have aroused. If the Government proceed with them and if we find that, as a result, accidents on the roads increase following the increase in the speed limit, the Government will be responsible, having raised the limit in defiance of so much opposition.

Mr. John Hall: Will the hon. Gentleman say what he means when he says that this proposal is opposed by the passengers? Is he referring to the Pedestrians' Association, which might be regarded as representing some passengers, or is there a passengers' organisation which has registered a form of protest?

Mr. Mellish: Obviously, they would be represented by an organisation like the Pedestrians' Association.

Mr. Hay: How can the Pedestrians' Association represent passengers?

Mr. Mellish: I think that that organisation would represent the interests of passengers. It would be fair to say that there is opposition to this proposal from some very powerful bodies.

Mr. John Hall: There are many motorists who from time to time travel as passengers, and they would certainly not agree with the representations which have been made by the hon. Member.

Mr. Fletcher: I certainly think that they would. I am sure it cannot possibly be to the advantage of the private motorist that buses and coaches should be allowed to travel at 40 m.p.h.

Mr. Hall: They do now.

Mr. Fletcher: If the hon. Member says that they do now, in defiance of the existing speed limit, the argument against these Regulations is even stronger, because it must be not only an appalling nuisance but a source of danger to motorists to find buses and coaches habitually exceeding the speed limit. No one has denied that they do so, and there is no reason to suppose that they would adhere to a 40 m.p.h. limit merely because the limit was increased from 30 to 40 m.p.h. It is far more likely that drivers of coaches and buses would regard a higher speed limit of 40 m.p.h. as an additional inducement to go an extra 10 m.p.h. above the limit, and then there would be more chaos, confusion and danger on the roads.

1.35 p.m.

Mr. John Hall: It was not my intention to intervene in this debate, but I have been persuaded to rise after listening to the speeches from hon. Members opposite. I would imagine that the same kind of arguments have taken place in this House in previous years, when the motor vehicle was first introduced. One can imagine the type of debate which took place when there was insistence on a man with a flag going in front of motor vehicles because of the appalling danger that the new juggernaut of the roads would bring.
I can understand my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) taking the attitude that he has done, because he has often declared his interest


in the matter in similar debates. I can understand the Pedestrians' Association and those who support him feel that motor vehicles should be removed altogether from the roads. There are occasions when I almost share those views, especially when one is almost poisoned by the diesel and petrol fumes which are emitted. But we must be realistic. The efforts of the Ministry of Transport in recent years—and, we hope, increasingly so in years to come—have been directed towards improving road conditions so that vehicles can travel safely at reasonably economic speeds.
We have heard that many of the vehicles about which we are talking habitually travel above the existing speed of 30 m.p.h. except in those areas where the general speed limit is 30 m.p.h.

Mr. Mellish: This is monstrous. The hon. Member has no right to say that. He challenged my hon. Friend to quote figures, and now I challenge him. Has he any figures to prove that buses habitually travel at over the 30 m.p.h. speed limit?

Mr. Hall: I base my assumption on the same assumption which prompted his hon. Friend to say that speed is a major contributory factor in accidents. It is an impression. The hon. Gentleman said that as a motorist his experience taught him such and such a thing. My experience as a motorist—and I travel many thousands of miles in a year—teaches me that the vast majority of coaches, and especially long-distance commercial vehicles, travel over the 30 m.p.h. limit.
The hon. Gentleman has said that the great majority of long-distance coach and commercial drivers are first-class drivers—probably the finest drivers on the roads. I accept that and endorse every word he said on the matter. They will drive at a speed which they consider safe for the vehicle that they are driving, bearing in mind the conditions on the roads and the weather. If one examines accident statistics one finds that rarely are these long-distance skilled drivers involved in accidents due to their own fault, or to their error of judgment, or to travelling at an excessive speed. They may be involved in accidents through the fault of other parties, but rarely through their own fault. It am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with that.

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member will also bear in mind that these first-class drivers have schedules and times in which to do certain journeys. It is by that timing that their speed is governed. At the moment, the schedules are based on the 30 m.p.h. maximum. They, as drivers, object to this speed limit being increased. One of the reasons is that undoubtedly as a result of these Regulations going through—the Ministry of Transport, I gather, is not in the least interested in this—all the schedules will be revised on the basis of a 40 m.p.h. limit and many of the drivers believe that conditions will then become very difficult.

Mr. Hall: I agree that this is among the objections held by hon. Members opposite. It means that if the schedules are changed on the basis of a 40 m.p.h. limit instead of a 30 m.p.h. limit, there may be a greater turnround of vehicles and more journeys involved. But from the point of view of road safety, which has been the main burden or argument of hon. Members opposite, I completely fail to understand their point of view.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby said that despite the improvements n the design of vehicles, including their brakes, nevertheless to travel at a speed of 40 m.p.h. is dangerous; that it does not matter what may be the strength of the brakes, it would be wrong to allow these vehicles legally to travel at a speed at which they all travel at the moment, despite the fact that the accident record of these vehicles bears very favourable comparison with that of other road users.
I beg hon. Members to look at this from the point of view of hon. Members opposite, and to examine their arguments and see whether they are logical. I ask them to forget for the moment the other matter which is at the back of their minds and which is the main reason for their opposition to these Regulations.

Mr. Fletcher: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the two reasons are interlocked? If the hon. Member were satisfied that the drivers of these buses and coaches, through their unions, take the view that this increase in the speed limit, with the consequences that it would have, will not be conducive to increased road safety, could the hon. Member still defend it?

Mr. Hall: I think I should wish to examine the reasons which led them to that conclusion. I should want to inquire whether they were bound up with the feeling that, perhaps, the various coach and vehicle companies might wish to use their vehicles more frequently over the same sort of runs, whether that meant that the companies would not have to buy so many vehicles or, perhaps, have so many drivers, whether it meant that the number of people employed in the industry would not rise or might even contract. Many considerations might have to be taken into account before one arrived at a conclusion on that matter.
It seems to me, having listened to the arguments advanced earlier, until the more recent argument introduced by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), that the trade union leaders, if they have advanced the same arguments, are a little more out of touch with the actual work of their members than they have been with the actions and attitude of their members in regard to the Covent Garden Market Bill, which we discussed a little earlier. It seems to me that the arguments which have been adduced have much more relation to the points I mentioned just now in reply to an intervention by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) than to the matter of road safety. I beg hon. Members to think about it again.

1.42 p.m.

Mr. Hay: If I may have the leave of the House, I wish to answer certain of the points which have been raised.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not think that it is necessary for the hon. Member to have leave to speak again in reply to a debate of this kind, on a Motion to approve the Regulations. Is that so, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): As the hon. Gentleman has moved a substantive Motion, he has the right to reply.

Mr. Hay: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Obviously, I should not have committed the breach of order which otherwise I feared I might do.
I realised that there would be several matters which hon. Members wish to discuss. Before the debate, the hon. Mem-

ber for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) told me that they intended to raise certain matters. I thought it desirable, therefore, that I should, in opening the debate, just explain the legal effect of the Regulations and speak later, perhaps at greater length, to explain the reasons why we are taking this course.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey complained that the House had had rather short notice of the debate. I am sorry about it. As he knows, matters of business in the House are not for me or for my right hon. Friend. It seems a little hard, after we had put down House of Lords reform as the subject for debate, only to be met with strong criticism that hon. Members could not be here, that, after deciding to meet that request of the Opposition and put down other business, we should be told that there has been insufficient notice of this debate.
The House must realise that these Regulations have been lying on the Table for some weeks. Hon. Members knew that the Regulations were coming up for debate. They knew that, at this time of the year, there is always pressure of business and, often, various matters—comparatively small matters from the point of view of Parliamentary time—have to be put in. I am sorry that more hon. Members have not been able to be here and take part, but I do not think that the Government can legitimately be accused of having taken unfair or undue advantage of their position.
I turn now to the background of the problem. The 30 m.p.h. maximum speed limit for what we in the Ministry call public service vehicles—buses and coaches—has been unchanged since 1930, thirty-one years ago. As several hon. Members have said, there have in the intervening period been great changes and improvements in the design, construction and equipment of this type of vehicle. In 1930, when the 30 m.p.h. limit was fixed, most of us used to call this type of vehicle the charabanc. Today, of course, such vehicles, their apparatus and their equipment are entirely different. Their speed, their braking power and their engine's are enormously different from what they were then. This is a new situation which we are entitled to take into account.
I am advised —I think that it must be within the personal knowledge of most hon. Members—that a speed of 40 m.p.h. on the open road for a bus or coach—certainly for a coach—is really quite safe to the driver, to the passengers and to other vehicles.
The decision to bring forward these Regulations has not been taken without a good deal of thought. It has taken some time. In 1958, the Bus and Coach Sub-Committee of the Departmental Committee on Road Safety, on which a great many of the organisations mentioned today such as the union, the Pedestrians' Association, and so forth, are represented, decided that it would recommend this alteration to raise the maximum speed limit of buses and coaches from 30 to 40 m.p.h. That recommendation was made to the Road Safety Committee itself, and the Committee endorsed it.
In 1958—I think that it was in December—we circulated our proposals, as we are obliged to do by the Road Traffic Act, to all the interested organisations. We received in reply a great many views about them. There were quite a number of views hostile to the proposition. On the other hand, there were quite a number of views entirely in favour of it, views ranging from that of the motoring organisations, for instance, which said that they agreed, to the view of the bus and coach operators themselves who maintained in 1958, and who certainly maintain today, that although this step of raising the maximum limit from 30 to 40 m.p.h, is to be welcomed it is really insufficient and there should be no limitation at all upon the speed of public service vehicles. That we do not entirely support this view is evidenced by the fact that we have brought forward these Regulations making only this limited change at this stage.
Quite apart from the road safety issues involved, which are important and which are really the foundation for the change we propose, one ought to look at the surrounding circumstances of the industry itself. Hon. Members, particularly those who come from rural areas, know that the bus industry is under very heavy pressure today. The traffic is drying up as private transport increases. Bus operators are finding it more and more

difficult, particularly in remote parts of the country, to maintain the full volume of services which are licensed, and they are finding that the old principle of cross-subsidisation, whereby the profits on the lucrative services are used to offset losses on the non-lucrative services, is becoming more difficult to apply.
This change will, we believe, be of great benefit to the bus industry in meeting that problem. This was a point which a deputation from the Public Transport Association, which I saw last year, made to me very forcibly indeed. We have not decided to make the change simply because of the economic difficulties of the bus and coach industry. We have come to our decision because we genuinely believe that the change will be a measure which will contribute to road safety rather than the reverse.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the view of my right hon. Friend the Minister that what we really need in this country today in the matter of speed limits is realism. There are speed limits for certain vehicles and for certain roads which are unrealistic. When I say "unrealistic", what I mean is that people who have to use the roads or operate the vehicles do not believe that the limit in force is fair. They seek to break it, and frequently do. In many cases, so difficult is the problem of enforcement that they manage to do so without any penalty. It is our view that it would be much better to ensure that speed limits are realistic, that a road should be properly surveyed and a proper speed limit applied to it which would have the general acceptance of the people using it. That is why we are conducting this exercise in reviewing the speed limits on roads and why we are bringing these Regulations forward, changing the maximum speed limit for a certain type of vehicle.
At this point, I must emphasise one aspect which is most important but which has, perhaps, not been clearly brought out in the debate. Hon. Members, in speaking about buses and coaches going at 40 m.p.h., have done so in the sort of tone which implied that they will invariably and always go at that speed wherever they are going. All we are doing is to place a maximum speed limit on these vehicles—making it 40 m.p.h. instead of 30 m.p.h. But, as


we all know, the drivers of these vehicles —and here I add my tribute to them—are extremely good. They know their job. They are extremely careful, and, of course, they will not "blind along" at 40 m.p.h., irrespective of road conditions.
All that they will now have is the right to reach 40 m.p.h. but not to go beyond it, provided that all the surrounding road circumstances are favourable. I do not believe that we shall have the large number of additional accidents that the hon. and gloomy Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) prognosticated some time ago.

Mr. Mellish: Perhaps, at this stage, the hon. Gentleman will deal with the point about commercial vehicles, raised by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page)—that accidents among such vehicles have gone up since their speed limit was increased. Is not that relevant?

Mr. Hay: I will come to that in due course, but now I want to mention some of the safeguards which there are for public service vehicles.
To begin with, there is regular inspection of all these vehicles by the technical officers of my Department. These usually take the form of regular inspections off the road at least once a year, and many of these vehicles are also inspected by spot checks on the road. I know, from having to decide appeals on this matter, that our inspecting officers are extremely difficult to satisfy about the construction and maintenance of these vehicles. Thus, a very high standard of maintenance is achieved.
Secondly, the drivers have to have a special public service vehicle driver's licence, and the consequences of a conviction for a driving offence, including speeding, may be very serious for them. Finally, since it has been said in the course of the debate that the speed limit may well be disregarded with impunity, I must remind the House that public service vehicles are very clearly recognisable. One can soon spot a bus or a coach, whereas it is often difficult to distinguish between a private car and certain types of van. We envisage no great difficulty in enforcement.

Mr. Fletcher: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the provisions

about enforcement ought to apply universally both to coaches and to private cars?

Mr. Hay: That is so. As far as we are concerned, every endeavour is made to secure proper enforcement of the law, whatever it may be. There is, from time to time, criticism, whether legitimate or not, that we or our officers or the police have failed in this, that or the other respect, but I can assure hon. Members that it is the desire and the intention of the Government that the law should be properly enforced.
I now turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Bermondsey. Before doing so, I want to say that we are glad to see him back, completely restored to his normal, robust health, and to see that his temper has not suffered in the least from his enforced stay in bed.
I am sorry that it has not been possible to debate these Regulations at the same time as those that my right hon. Friend has made about the size of vehicles, but these are difficult matters to fit into the parliamentary timetable at this time of year.
The hon. Gentleman touched upon the attitude of the trade union's. He said that they were bitterly opposed to this change. With all due respect to him, I am rather inclined to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall). I think that there is no doubt that those who are in charge of the unions' affairs have, at the back of their minds, not simply and solely the question of road safety, but also the working conditions of their members. As far as I have been able to judge—and I am given a good deal of information on this subject—the great majority of the drivers who operate these vehicles would welcome this change. I am told that they have regarded the speed limit of 30 m.p.h. as completely anachronistic and unnecessary in these days. If a poll were conducted among bus and coach drivers, a high proportion would be in favour of the new limit.
They have in their minds another factor. As the hon. Gentleman said, we are introducing again in the next Session the Road Traffic Bill, for which time has been inadequate in the present Session. One of its essential provisions is the arrangement we are making for compulsory disqualification of people who commit certain traffic offences three


times in a certain number of years. At the moment, if we were to retain the speed limit of 30 m.p.h. it would mean that the bus or coach driver who, however inadvertently, exceeded the speed limit more than three times in three successive years, and was caught on each occasion, would not only be disqualified from driving, but would be at a great disadvantage compared with others.
Here, the point of realism comes in again, because we want these limits to be realistic, particularly bearing in mind our intention to make the enforcement and the use of disqualification much more effective in the future than perhaps it is at present. I hope, therefore, that on reflection, the unions and those who conduct their affairs will realise that this is a change which should benefit their members overall.
The next point made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey was concerned with overtaking. Without meaning any offence to him, I think that he inadvertently misrepresented our attitude. We say that where a bus or coach is travelling along a road at 30 m.p.h., being rigidly kept down to that speed, there is an enormous temptation for the drivers of motor cars or other following vehicles, particularly where the road is apparently straight but only just wide enough to pass, to take a chance and try to get by. On the other hand, if the speed limit were 40 m.p.h. and the road was appropriate for a general progression of traffic at 40 m.p.h. we would not get such a situation.
That is one of the reasons why we are bringing this forward. We want to avoid those cases where motor cars overtake public service vehicles because the latter are moving too slowly for them, and doing so in circumstances which may be highly dangerous. That really is the point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby made his usual forceful contribution to this matter. I am sorry that I perhaps cannot persuade him that enforcement of the speed limit is as effective as he would like, but I can assure him that we, and the Home Office, do our best to ensure that the limits are enforced. But, as I have said, I believe that there is little doubt that, if we can have this change, it will make for more

realistic speed limits and, indeed, will contribute something to road safety.
My hon. Friend suggested that there may be repercussions—that in, perhaps, a few years or even a few months my right hon. Friend will say, "I have put up the speed limit for buses and coaches, and, therefore, I must raise the limits on all sorts of other vehicles to the same degree." I cannot give my hon. Friend a definite or categorical assurance one way or the other, except to say that we are reviewing the speed limits on all types of vehicles. Our objective will be to fix limits which are realistic in modern driving conditions and have regard to the construction and equipment of modern vehicles.
It must not be forgotten that the vehicles will be operating on a road system throughout the country which is steadily improving. I do not wish to be complacent, but we are making good progress now with our road programme. Many of the roads on which these vehicles operate will be first class.
The hon. Member for Islington, East, who made a second speech from the Front Bench opposite, has, unfortunately, left us. I should like Ito have challenged, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, the hon. Member's categorical assurance that this change was opposed by the drivers, the passengers and the general public. I have already referred to the drivers. I think that it will be found that the great majority of them are not opposed to the change but really are in favour of it.
If we have this change, it will mean for the passengers that the scheduling can be better, the prospect of arriving on time will be improved and, overall, the continuance of services of all kinds will be assured. We have had virtually no complaint about this change from the general public. We have had letters, it is true, from the Pedestrians' Association. I have discussed the matter with Mr. Frank Cousins and I know that the unions officially do not care for the change. There has, however, been no great outcry from the general public or passengers in these vehicles that we are doing something reprehensible. Had there been such an outcry, I would have expected a rather larger attendance at this brief debate today and rather more hostility than has been shown in the course of the speeches.
I hope, however, that with my explanation, which has been somewhat longer than I intended, of why we bring these Regulations forward, hon. Members will consider it a useful change to make and will not oppose it.

2.0 p.m.

Mr. Mellish: We are grateful for the extreme courtesy always shown by the Parliamentary Secretary from the Front Bench when dealing with points which we have put to him. The hon. Gentleman is a very good example to those in a more superior position in his Ministry.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the conditions of today as compared with the 1930s and pointed out that the speed limit had not been altered. That argument does not impress me and I do not think that it impresses many people. Whereas, in 1930, we went down to the seaside by charabanc, we go today by motor coach. The motor coach driver of today has a far more arduous task than the charabanc driver of 1930. He is surrounded by hundreds of motor scooters and unbelievable numbers of cars which sometimes travel at an incredible speed. The average coach driver of today faces a very difficult task.
The hon. Gentleman emphasised and supported the view of his hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) that the approach of the unions to the Regulations is concerned mainly with working conditions and not with road safety.

Mr. Hay: I did not want to appear unkind to the unions. I simply said that one of the factors very much in their minds was the question of wages, conditions of service, scheduling, and so on. I did not say that that was the only thing in their minds, because they are just as much concerned with road safety as we are.

Mr. Mellish: Having discussed the matter with national officers of the unions and with many drivers, I can only say that the emphasis is on road safety. They are well organised.
On the argument about the new schedules that may operate, the drivers are well able to look after themselves. It could well be that for many drivers, if they travel at the speeds expected,

there will be even less work to do. That will not mean the employment of fewer drivers. They are, however, concerned and worried that this is only the beginning of the story by the Ministry and that it will continue.
The Parliamentary Secretary gave the game away, not from his Ministry's angle, but from the viewpoint of owners of vehicles. He said firmly that if many of the owners had their way, there would be no speed limit. I do not think that anyone in this House would say that that was right and that people could drive at any speed they like wherever they wish.
Some people have a private profit motive and would do anything purely for money. They would not care about safety. The case is made for us by the fact that some of those who support the new increase in speed are really not concerned with road safety if they hold the sort of views which have been expressed. The Parliamentary Secretary firmly believes that if there were a private Gallup poll, the majority of drivers would support him. I do not agree. I have discussed the matter with responsible drivers at trade union steward level. They feel that this change is only a beginning and that for the commercial driver, the speed will go up probably within a year to 40 m.p.h. We shall then have the story from the motoring organisations that 40 m.p.h. is not enough.
The attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary is that that is progress. I do not consider that it is the sort of progress we want. At the end of the day, speed on the roads must cause a great number of accidents. The only place where we can talk about speed nowadays is in the air. On the road, it is the most dangerous thing possible, because at certain speeds one loses control and the question of split judgment arises.
We cannot oppose the Regulations at this stage otherwise than by voice and expression of view. It is a pity that a matter of this kind was not debated with the other Regulations concerning vehicle size and also on the kind of day when there would have been more interest in the matter.

Mr. John Hall: The hon. Member made the point that certain operators would be much more concerned with the


profit motive than with the safety factor. No coach or commercial vehicle operator wants to do anything that will increase his accident record. Insurance rates are so increasingly heavy that to have a worsening accident record would be detrimental financially to him. Such an operator would certainly take the greatest care to ensure that his vehicles were run in such a way as to avoid accidents.

Mr. Mellish: I was merely picking up the words of the Parliamentary Secretary, who said that if some operators had their way there would be no speed limit at all. I do not believe that any hon. Member would ever support that principle.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limit) Regulations, 1961, dated 29th June, 1961, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.

PATENTS (FEES)

2.7 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I beg to move,
That the Patents (Fees Amendment) Order, 1961, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.
The effect of the Order is to raise the maximum amounts chargeable in respect of patent fees. The existing maxima are laid down in the First Schedule to the Patents Act, 1949. Parliament has recently enacted the Patents and Designs (Renewals, Extensions and Fees) Act, 1961, which enables the First Schedule of the 1949 Act to be amended by affirmative Order. The Order is submitted for the approval of the House under Section 2 of that Act.
The reason for the Order is that it is necessary to raise the fees because the costs of running the Patent Office have increased. It has always been accepted that the fees should be sufficient to cover the cost of administering the grant of patents.
During the debate on the Second Reading of the 1961 Act, under which the Order is submitted, I said that the deficit for that year would be £74,000. Since then, the full effects of the salary increases given to the patents examining staff, together with other civil servants, have become apparent. Even though receipts for this year are likely to increase by £100,000 without raising fees, it is estimated that unless fees are raised the deficit will amount to £187,000.
The Order proposes to increase the maximum on filing of complete specification from £4 to £15 and on sealing of patents from £5 to £6. The fees charged at present are £4 and £3, respectively. The Order does not propose to increase the £1 fee payable on application for a patent. We are proposing to keep the fee at £1 in deference to views expressed in both Houses. In addition, a graduated scale for maximum renewal fees is substituted for the existing scale under which a renewal fee of £10 is chargeable for the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th year, a fee of £15 in the 9th and 10th years and a fee of £20 for each of the 11th to the 16th years. The present Order should thus give adequate scope for increasing fees without the House


having to be troubled again to raise the maxima for some years. That does not mean that this Order will deprive Parliament of control over future increases. The fees themselves cannot be increased till amended rules are laid before Parliament. The House will, therefore, have an opportunity then of examining the way in which it is proposed to cover the deficit within the maxima here prescribed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Patents (Fees Amendment) Order, 1961, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.

INSURANCE CONTRACTS (GERMANY)

2.12 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I beg to move,
That the Insurance Contracts (War Settlement) (Germany) Order, 1961, a draft of which was laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.
The purpose of this Order is to give effect to an agreement which was made under the Insurance Contracts (War Settlement) Act, 1952, between the Government and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning contracts of insurance and contracts and treaties of reinsurance made between persons who subsequently became enemies as a result of war. The agreement itself was made at Bonn on 28th January, 1960, and was presented to Parliament in June, 1960, as Germany No. 3 (1960), Cmnd. 1041. The Act of 1952 enables Her Majesty to give effect to such agreement by Order in Council subject to the approval of both Houses.
The general effect of the Order would be to provide that on the outbreak of war in 1939 direct contracts of insurance between the insurer and insured persons are to be regarded as having remained intact while contracts and treaties of reinsurance are to be regarded as having been terminated by the outbreak of war. In accordance with the settled rule of United Kingdom law direct contracts do not cover losses due to belligerent action. This principle has been extended in the case of the Federal Republic so as to preclude policy holders whose goods were in vessels diverted before the war,

on the order of their own Government in furtherance of war policy, from claiming for losses incurred after the diversion.
The reason for that provision, which has not appeared, I understand, in previous orders, is that the German Government took control of the movement of all German-owned merchant shipping on 16th August, 1939. Its effect is to modify United Kingdom law in favour of the insurers in this case. It is extremely unlikely that the rights of any United Kingdom policy holders against a German insurer will be prejudiced by this change. In any case the Institute of London Underwriters, the Liverpool Underwriters' Association and Lloyds Underwriters' Association have entered into an undertaking dated 1st May, 1961, to indemnify British policy holders in respect of any claims which would have been recoverable but for this Order, provided that documents of title and proof of loss are submitted by 31st December, 1963. It is anticipated that transactions affected by the agreement are not likely to exceed £500,000 either way.
The Federal Republic has already given effect to the agreement and the Federal law in question has already been adopted by West Berlin.
This is the last order to be made under the Act. As in the case of Finland and Italy detailed provisions dealing with contracts of insurance and contracts and treaties of reinsurance were drafted by the two insurance markets themselves. These provisions appear in the Schedule to the draft Order in Council. If Parliament agrees to the Order the necessary instruments of ratification will be signed on behalf of both Governments as soon as possible.

2.14 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I have no doubt that the objects of this Order as explained by the hon. Gentleman to the House are meritorious. Nevertheless, I do not think this Order ought to have been brought up today, and for this reason. In the ordinary way Government Departments are very careful not to bring Orders requiring an affirmative Resolution of this House till they have been approved by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments set up by this House to examine all Statutory


Instruments and to report on them. The House will know that, according to a minute of proceedings of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments in its last Report, the Select Committee made it quite clear that it considered that this was not a Statutory Instrument to which no objection could be taken and the Select Committee also considered and ordered that the President of the Board of Trade Should be requested to furnish the Committee with a memorandum explaining the Statutory Instrument.
Of course, in the ordinary way the Committee would consider that memorandum at its next meeting. Therefore, it seems to me very unfortunate and not particularly courteous to the Select Committee that the House should be asked to deal with this today. I hope the hon. Gentleman, having heard what I have to say about it, will accept that view and will postpone it to a later occasion.
I say that for this reason. Although I have no doubt that it may be very necessary, this Order relates to contracts of insurance about matters which arose before the war, before 1939, which is over twenty years ago. I have no doubt that very complicated matters of insurance and reinsurance have taken a long time to negotiate, and I have no doubt that the negotiations have been satisfactory to British interests and British insurers, but there are two points which I think call for consideration.
The first is this. It is not clear to me why the Order should be made before the instruments of ratification have been exchanged, which was one of the matters which particularly concerned the Select Committee. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said, that he thought it would be better for the House to consider it before the agreement was ratified. I gather that he took that course out of respect for the House, bruit there is another matter which one has not yet had an opportunity of ventilating, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will pay attention to it.
If he will look at Article 3 of this Order, he will see that it provides that the provisions in the Schedule shall, in effect, apply to residents or companies having their principal seats either in the

Federal Republic of Germany or in West Berlin. Then there is a very curious Article 5, which says, in effect, that if before the date of coming into operation of the Order the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany makes a certain declaration then the agreement will not apply to West Berlin.
I am not aware that the President of the Board of Trade or Her Majesty in Council have any power to make an order which on the face of it applies to West Berlin and then to delegate to the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany the right to say that it shall not apply to West Berlin. I do not know why that is necessary or what the consequences are. The point is that this would permit a foreign Government to exclude West Berlin from the benefit of this Order. It may, perhaps, have the effect of rendering the whole Order ultra vires and inoperative.
The Minister, in the course of commending the Order, said, it I understood him correctly, that it had been adopted by West Berlin. If it is true that it has been agreed by responsible authorities in West Berlin that the Order shall apply to West Berlin, I imagine that Article 5 of the Order is unnecessary. If it is unnecessary, I would suggest to the Minister with the greatest respect that the Order should be withdrawn and that Article 5 should be deleted. If, on the other hand, I did not understand the Minister correctly and there is still a possibility that the Order would not apply to West Berlin, it is important that we should know that and ascertain the facts before the Order is passed by the House.
If there is any likelihood that the German Federal Government wants to make a declaration under which the Order will not apply to West Berlin, I see no reason why they should not say so now and make the declaration and exclude West Berlin from its operation. lit must be right to take one or other of those two courses, but if neither is taken we are in the unfortunate position that we make an Order which on the face of it applies to West Berlin but which by the terms of it would give the Federal Government the right to say that it shall not apply to West Berlin. I do not know


what the machinery will be to advise the House whether or not it applies to West Berlin.
It may be said that some of these matters are academic. I do not know that they are. There are certainly a good many problems arising in West Berlin which are not academic. I do not raise these points to add to the Government's difficulties, but merely in the interest of orderly legislation by Statutory Instrument, I hope that the Minister will bear in mind what I have said.

2.25 p.m.

Mr. N. Macpherson: First, the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) dealt with the position vis-à-vis the Statutory Instruments Committee. I regret that this Order has had to be taken before it has been before that Committee, but the hon. Member will bear in mind that it will come to the Committee and then has to go to another place. Therefore, there will be an opportunity for considering any points that are made by the Select Committee.
On ratification, as I mentioned to the hon. Member, this was done in deference to the House. It was thought better on this occasion that the Order should be approved by the House before the instruments of ratification were actually signed. I agree that the position on West Berlin is complicated, but the answer is that because of the terms of the inter-governmental agreement of January, 1960, it is necessary that the Order in Council, under Article 5, should leave open to the Federal German Government the possibility of excluding West Berlin from the agreement, because we are bound to implement the terms of the agreement itself. But, as I said, the West Berlin authorities have already adopted the Federal German law, as they are entitled to do within a limited period of three months. In fact, they adopted it in June of this year and the Federal German law was passed in March this year.
One may fairly say that between now and the very short time after approval of the Order by both Houses, if it is given, before the instruments of ratification are actually signed, there is no likelihood whatever of the Federal German Government invoking Article 5. It is

included purely because it was part of the agreement that was reached in 1960.
On the general subject of the time taken, the hon. Member was good enough not to stress the matter very much. I think he appreciates from the remarks that I have made how complicated this matter was and how difficult it was to obtain agreement, particularly on the question that I mentioned of the decision taken by the German Government in August, 1939, to control all merchant shipping at that time. That and other matters have rendered the course of the negotiations particularly difficult. They took four years, but since then there has been no appreciable delay. West Berlin adopted the law of the Federal Republic in June and here today we are introducing the Order to the House. I think that we have got on with it with commendable speed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Insurance Contracts (War Settlement) (Germany) Order, 1961, a draft of which was laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.

COTTON INDUSTRY (REORGANISATION SCHEME)

2.27 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I beg to move,
That the Cotton Doubling Reorganisation Scheme No. 2 (Confirmation) Order, 1961, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.
I hope that it will be to the convenience of the House if we consider with this Motion the four remaining Motions in the name of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Ernest Thornton: I agree.

Mr. Macpherson: The purpose of this and the other four Orders which the House will be asked to approve is very narrow. It is to make small and precisely similar amendments to each of the five reorganisation schemes which have been introduced under the Cotton Industry Act, 1959. These amendments take the form of supplementary schemes varying the principal schemes. Like the principal schemes, they require to be confirmed by the Board of Trade after being


approved by both Houses by affirmative Resolutions.
The confirming Orders were laid before Parliament in draft on 12th July and the supplementary schemes are attached as Schedules to the Orders. The principal schemes for the spinning, doubling and weaving sections came into force on 30th July, 1959, and for the finishing section on 1st August, 1960. The Board of Trade is authorised by the Cotton Industry Act to make grants not exceeding 25 per cent. of the cost of eligible expenditure incurred on approved re-equipment and modernisation and to lay down conditions for grants. The Cotton Board administers the re-equipment schemes on behalf of the Board of Trade as its agent.
These Orders provide that the Cotton Board's expenses in administering the schemes shall be met by the various sections of the industry themselves out of levies imposed under the principal schemes, on persons registered as carrying out business in those sections. The original intention was that the principal schemes should provide for this to be done, in accordance with the Act, but provision was not made at that time. I must apologise to the House for that omission and, at the same time, ask it to repair it by agreeing to these Orders.
As required by the Act, these schemes have been prepared by the Cotton Board in consultation with the bodies appearing to it to represent the interests both of those carrying on business and of those employed in the sections concerned. There has been general agreement with the purpose of the supplementary schemes, and, subject to the approval of Parliament, it is intended that they shall come into effect on 7th August.
With that explanation, I would ask the House, as I have said, to repair the omission in the principal schemes and to allow us to have these Orders.

2.31 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Thornton: I agree that the Orders are very narrow, but they provide for the raising of levies from the industry to meet the administrative expenses of the reorganisation part of the scheme. Therefore, it appears to me that the amount of money raised for this specific purpose must be

related in some degree to the amount which will be paid for re-equipment; that is, to the number of applications which have to be dealt with.
I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary was not able to make any reference to the progress of the scheme. We are aware that in their scrapping provisions the original schemes have exceeded expectations. In fact, according to the reply given by the President of the Board of Trade on 12th June last, the estimated cost to the Treasury of the scrapping schemes will be £12 to £13 million. Therefore, the scrapping schemes have doubled the expectation of the original estimate.
But what about the re-equipment schemes, the administrative expenses of which we are concerned with this afternoon? I think we must admit that these are going very badly indeed. Two of the three years have now passed in which applications can be made, and according to an Answer given by the President of the Board of Trade yesterday, the amount of Treasury grant which the applications attract is only £6·7 million. Therefore, if, in the third year, we get the same proportion of applications as in the first two years, only £10 million of Treasury money will be attracted in re-equipment grants.
If we add to that an estimate of £2 million for the finishing section, the total will be £12 million. It would appear that the re-equipment part of the schemes will be only about half the estimate made by the President of the Board of Trade when he presented the Bill and the original schemes to Parliament. I appreciate that the estimates for a Measure of this kind and for the schemes would be extraordinarily difficult indeed, but we cannot escape the fact that the uncertainty in the industry today is probably responsible for the comparative failure of the re-equipment schemes under the original Measure.
The purpose of that Act was, in the words of the President of the Board of Trade at that time, to create a smaller, more compact and more efficient industry. As I indicated earlier, the scrapping provisions have exceeded expectations. They have probably doubled them. Therefore, we have succeeded in making a smaller and more compact industry. But what has still to be done is to make a more efficient


industry. I am very considerably disturbed—I am sure the House is—at the slow progress which is being made in respect of the re-equipment aspect of the Cotton Industry Act, 1959. Unless there is a substantial change and a recreation of confidence in the next few months, it would appear that the re-equipment phase of the Act will be a substantial flop, and if that happens the whole scheme will prove to have been a costly failure.
I see no reason why we should oppose these Orders. I think that we are agreed on both sides that the House should approve them.

2.38 p.m.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I thank the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) for the way in which he has received the Orders. I think that it is, perhaps, a little premature to say that the re-equipment schemes are likely to be a flop. At present, the Cotton Board has received applications representing a total expenditure by the industry of about £27 million. The hon. Member's figures were exactly right.
I would agree that there is some uncertainty in the industry, but the fact is that there is still a year remaining for the submission of applications for re-equipment and modernisation and, after that, a further two years for the installation of machinery. We certainly hope that within the next year we shall have many more applications and that, within that time, it may be possible to see the future a little more clearly than it is perhaps possible to do at this juncture.

Mr. Thornton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not overlook the fact that I qualified my statement by saying that unless there is a substantial change in the position in the next few months it will be a flop.

Mr. Macpherson: Yes, I recognise that. The hon. Gentleman, very generously, was not condemning the scheme or prophesying disaster. On the contrary, I know that he hopes, with us, that the scheme will be a success and that the degree of re-equipment and modernisation will make for a much more compact and much more efficient industry.
I hope that in the time that is left the industry will take advantage of the facilities that are offered and make applications for re-equipment and modernisation grants. If that is done, when we come to the closing date in a year's time we may see that the original target has been very nearly reached, if not exceeded.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Cotton Doubling Reorganisation Scheme No. 2 (Confirmation) Order. 1961, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.

Cotton Finishing (Woven Cloth) Reorganisation Scheme No. 2 (Confirmation) Order, 1961 [draft laid before the House, 12th July], approved.—[Mr. N. Macpherson.]

Cotton Finishing (Yarn Processing) Reorganisation Scheme No. 2 (Confirmation) Order, 1961 [draft laid before the House, 12th July], approved.—[Mr. N. Macpherson.]

Cotton Spinning Reorganisation Scheme No. 2 (Confirmation) Order, 1961 [draft laid before the House, 12th July], approved.—[Mr. N. Macpherson.]

Cotton Weaving Reorganisation Scheme No. 2 (Confirmation) Order, 1961 [draft laid before the House, 12th July], approved.—[Mr. N. Macpherson.]

NATURE CONSERVANCY (RESEARCH)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

2.40 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: I think that many hon. Members will welcome the opportunity at long last to have a look at the research work of the Nature Conservancy, particularly now that we have a Minister who is responsible for the activities of the Conservancy. For the six years that I have been a Member of the House we have been prohibited from raising matters concerning the Nature Conservancy and have only been able to put Questions to the Minister of Agriculture in so far as the Conservancy's work affects agriculture. Many of us are very perturbed that a Council of the Privy Council is responsible for the control of the Nature Conservancy. I do not think that the Council has met since the Conservancy was set up in 1949 by the party opposite.
I should add how very welcome it is, when one threatens any Government Department with an Adjournment debate on a Friday afternoon, to receive the help and co-operation that one receives from the Parliamentary Secretary's office in preparing material for this debate. It is most encouraging, and I think it reflects the very helpful attitude which the Parliamentary Secretary has so far shown to all the problems which he has tackled.
Hon. Members will be aware that it was not so long ago that the Nature Conservancy was looked at by the Select Committee on Estimates regarding its estate management and the reserves which it held and that it came away with a clean sheet at that time. That can hardly be said of the Estimates Committee's Report for this Session to which I propose to refer in a few minutes.
In any discussion of the Nature Conservancy and its research work one must mention in particular the Nature Conservation Corps and the success of this movement. All of us interested in the Nature Conservancy would like to see this activity extended. It is a helpful, and beneficial way for many young people to make use of the Conservancy's reserves and the facilities it offers and

to help in its research work. I hope that we are going to see a large expansion of this particularly successful movement.
The Conservancy as a whole is a very considerable landlord in the Kingdom. It has an estate of 138,000 acres. One has only too look at its Annual Report to realise the restrictions on access to that estate. The restrictions on access are of such a nature that no private individual, be he farmer or landowner, or anyone else, would be allowed to apply to any estate in the country. Yes, despite all this restriction and very large acreage, it is hard to say that the estate is well maintained, well run and dedicated to the work of research.
Of the forty-two major nature research reserves in England and Wales alone there is only a five-year management plan for under half of them, and this is in the twelfth year of the Conservancy's existence. That does not reflect a very businesslike approach to the management of the reserves.
I should like to compare two examples of the activities of research that have been carried out by the Conservancy in two other reserves. I wish to refer, first, to the Hampshire County Council's example over the Old Winchester Hill reserve, which is very near my hon. Friend's constituency. There we have the case where public access had to be limited to a certain degree to a very famous beauty spot and one which many people wanted to visit in the normal course of a weekend outing.
In the first instance, the Conservancy felt that it should restrict access because of danger to important botanical species on this hill. But the Hampshire County Council approached the problem realistically and was determined that the Conservancy's area on Old Winchester Hill should be an outdoor biological laboratory for the whole county, somewhere where the work which the Conservancy was doing would be available for all the school children to see and not only for the enthusiasts, the people who were already boffins and who were already interested in them. In that way, people interested could benefit from the research being carried on.
Compare this with the Conservancy's acquisition of Strathy Bog on the borders of Caithness and Sutherland, a


reserve of 122 acres and practically the same size as Old Winchester Hill, and one very important in the development of the past history and research on peat and moss. But what local liaison is there there? How many school children from Caithness and Sutherland have been to the Strathy Bog? How many members of the North of Scotland College of Agriculture, which is doing a lot of work on the rehabilitation of peat and the reseeding of land, have been there or have benefited one iota from the research being carried on there?
There is a reserve in a very isolated part of the country, but, far worse—one cannot argue about the position of these reserves—there is a reserve which is not backed by a sub-committee of the county council or by a recreational committee and where there is not even a staff of voluntary wardens. There is no one there to explain what is going on. There is a piece of land owned by the Conservancy group—the Conservancy has the idea that it must grab anything of interest—on which no research is being carried on and no use is being made of the land. It is very different from the good work done at Old Winchester Hill.
In anything like the scientific body of the Nature Conservancy we in this House have to take great care that we do not get one man's very strong personality or one man's particularly interest in research succeeding in persuading the Conservancy to take over a bit of land or a point of scientific interest and that, when that person's interest comes to an end, that section of the Conservancy lapses and no further use is made of it.
I should like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to say that he will look at every single bit of land which the Conservancy holds and will give a very firm directive in the matter. We must do this because land is a very scarce commodity in this country. Unless there is a minimum of county naturalists trusts, unless we have more than the eleven at present and three in formation, or the potential of forming a proper corps of voluntary wardens—and I do not insist on expenditure on full-time wardens; it is perfectly possible to run them with voluntary wardens—and unless the reserve has the backing of local interest, it should be given up.
These nature reserves must be made laboratories for the county councils. If we are to spend public money on them, we must use them for teaching purposes. I do not want them to be, as so many are at the moment, places where anyone who is interested in the subject goes simply because he is already a converted enthusiast. We all want to see the Nature Conservancy bringing the doctrine of conserving nature to everyone in the country and making a proper use of its resources.
Surely the ridiculous provision that we have over the coypu would never have arisen had the research work carried out by the Conservancy been properly done in collaboration with the local farming interests. No one says that the coypu was one of the natural fauna of the British Isles. We can look up any book on British mammals and shall not find the coypu in it, so that the Conservancy was not even keeping within its terms of reference when it decided to preserve and look after the coypu which only escaped from a fur farm at the beginning of the war. That has happened as a result of the encouragement that the Conservancy gave to the establishment of these colonies of coypu.
The Sixth Report of the Estimates Committee, which came out the other day, had a look in particular at the effect of the Nature Conservancy's attitude over the coypu. We find evidence given to that Committee by the British Trust for Ornithology and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which clearly stated that the establishment of the coypu has been
a real threat to wild life and natural history interests
in that part of East Anglia. It goes on further to say:
From the botanical aspect the coypu is a disaster and anybody not aware of this should immediately investigate and study the situation in Broadland".
This is a ridiculous situation. We have the Ministry of Agriculture deciding to start a campaign in East Anglia and Lincolnshire to eradicate, control and try to remove the coypu, an animal which the Nature Conservancy has been carrying out research on and trying to establish in this country for thirty years. It is a pathetic waste of Government resources and a terrible reflection on the


co-ordination between the Ministry of Agriculture, which should be responsible for agricultural research, and the Nature Conservancy that this should have been allowed to happen in the last twenty years.
While on the question of the value that the Ministry has had from research done by the Nature Conservancy, I should like to follow up a Question I asked the Minister a few years ago about the protection of crops by bird scarers and the investigation into bird vocalisation. I asked what benefits the manufacturers of bird scarers have had from this research or the research into trying to persuade pied fly catchers to nest higher in trees than they have done before. It is impossible to say that this is of any practical benefit whatsoever to the United Kingdom at the moment.
At the other extreme one wants to look at the case of the research carried on into the eradication of bracken. An American company is interested in discovering a chemical which would kill bracken. It did not go to the Nature Conservancy or to the Agricultural Research Council, but to a university. It went to the West of Scotland College of Agriculture and gave that college a grant to carry cm certain experiments realising that as a result of the research done it would get a commercial advantage. From that the firm developed a reasonable bracken sprayer, but a Government grant cannot be given towards it.

Mr. Leslie Hale: This is exactly what the Labour Party was trying to do to me on Monday. I get pushed from branch to branch further from Socialism. If a Government subsidy is arranged for this it seems that my life will become almost impossible to live.

Mr. Kimball: The last thing I should want is the life of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) to become impossible.
A successful chemical having been produced and research not having been done either by the Agricultural Research Council or the Nature Conservancy, we find that the Treasury and all Government Departments say, "This may be success-

ful, but we were not asked to do the research". Therefore we have to wait for three years while more experiments are carried out to find a chemical for bracken eradication.
I nearly got into some trouble with you, Mr. Speaker, earlier for studying this massive document, Country Life for 8th June. In it there is an important article on the problem of spraying roadside verges. I do not think for a moment that divisional road engineers of county councils realise that the Nature Conservancy has carried out considerable research on the question of spraying roadside verges. I believe a circular on the subject was issued by the Ministry of Transport, but that Ministry issues an enormous number of circulars.
In the article in Country Life, Lindsey County Council is criticised for having sprayed roadside verges in a particularly important area of Tetford Hill near Louth, in Lincolnshire. The council was not aware of the damage being done by that spraying. If the research on spraying of roadside verges had been carried out and the results made available to the National Agricultural Advisory Service officers throughout the area, a very different pattern would have emerged.
All of us with country constituencies are familiar with the very important part that the N.A.A.S. officers now play in our country life. One cannot go to the smallest show without finding them there. One cannot embark on any new agricultural measure or produce any new spray today without the N.A.A.S. officer taking an interest, advising and helping. I am certain that if the research into spraying of roadside verges and the work done on it had been available to the National Agricultural Advisory Service, divisional road engineers—who see these people every day of their lives—would have been aware of the damage which would be done and far greater use would have been made of the original work done by the Conservancy.
The trouble with the Nature Conservancy is that when it does anything such as producing a report on spraying of verges there is no way of passing it on to people who actually do the work of spraying. There is a sad lack of contact between those responsible for the conservation of nature and those who are likely to damage or destroy it.
I wish to draw attention to the duplication of research in forestry. We see from the Report of the Nature Conservancy that at long last the Conservancy has appointed an adviser in woodlands with a salary of £1,200 a year, plus travelling allowance. There is quite a considerable acreage of woodland in the Conservancy reserves. How much better it would have been if all the woodland had been handed over to the Forestry Commission in the first place. The Commission already has an extensive programme of research into planting trees on upland areas and growing all sorts of different species of trees. That research would have been very much wider because the Commission research is not limited to growing trees indigenous to this country. How much better it would have been, instead of trying to build up another little empire and a rival competitive scientific research, if these woodlands had been given to the Forestry Commission.
Private woodland owners interested in forestry have the benefit of Forestry Commission research. Before one starts planting, the divisional officer of the Commission visits the ground and advises on what should be planted. But that does not apply to the work of the Conservancy. I dare say that the information may be available from learned scientific documents, but it is not available to ordinary people who want to plant on upland ground. The results of the Nature Conservancy's research is not as freely available to them as is the work of the Forestry Commission.
This is the way in which many of us feel that the Conservancy has failed in dealing with the question of toxic chemicals and wild life. This is a subject on which we are all very worried, because much damage is being done to wild life in the countryside. Surely that is an opportunity for the Conservancy to establish itself, after the Agricultural Advisory Service and after the Forestry Commission, as the third great advisory body in the countryside on everything to do with wild life.
What has the Conservancy done? In its Annual Report, referring to toxic chemicals, it says that in order to achieve anything there must be a service which would enable it to carry out post-mortem diagnosis on large samples which are

available. The Conservancy strongly recommends that such a service which, it says, it cannot itself economically undertake should be provided by appropriate laboratories as soon as possible. I do not advocate that more money should be given to the Conservancy to set up these laboratories; it could raise the money easily.
Everyone is worried about this problem, and if the Conservancy had organised the situation so that every county was covered by a naturalists' trust it would get the money to establish the laboratories and would have the wholehearted support of everyone in the countryside to enable it to carry on this research work. Because these laboratories had been set up by local money and supported by a local naturalists' trust, there would be great interest in the work being done in the laboratories. It is a sad reflection that the Conservancy has failed in this respect.
When the matter was considered by the Public Accounts Committee it was a member, Major Buxton, giving evidence, as reported on page 187, who said that the real work in dealing with toxic chemicals in agriculture has been done by the Animal Health Trust and other interested bodies and that very little, if any, action in research has been carried out by the Nature Conservancy.
It is very important that the Minister of Agriculture and my hon. Friend should decide what the respective rôles of the Nature Conservancy and the Ministry will be in this research about wild life. The Estimates Committee recommended that the Conservancy should be able to carry out this research particularly on the indirect effect of the use of all toxic sprays and all such complex problems as the effect of sub-lethal doses of poisonous substances on the fertility of birds. If the Conservancy were to concentrate on this research it would have the wholehearted support of everybody in the country.
I say this not without careful thought and with some knowledge of the Nature Conservancy and its staff, and I direct my remarks only to the Nature Conservancy in England and Wales and not to that in Scotland, where I believe there is better direction and policy: I do not believe that the present directors of the


Conservancy in England and Wales are all of a mood or of a mind to take this opportunity.
It is open to the Conservancy for it to be built into the third important advisory service in the country. But I have looked at the speeches made by the Director-General of the Conservancy last year, only one which I can see in the list of speeches made publicly in which he showed any attempt to spread the doctrine to other people in this country of what the Conservancy was doing. That was the speech to the chief education officers of the United Kingdom on biological education. The rest were obtuse lectures to even more obtuse scientific bodies.
I want the directors of the Nature Conservancy to establish demonstrations at all county shows. I want to see a vast extension of the lectures given in schools, and I want the scientists of the Nature Conservancy to be the most popular and regular speakers at N.F.U. dinners and other functions for the next few years. I want a very different attitude on the part of the Conservancy. I want it to publicise the work of its research rather than try to build up a nice little niche for some scientists to carry on some very pleasant research but with a general attitude, "We do not want the general public to come in on this because in the interests of science it is not possible at this moment to propagate the results of all our work". I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will, amongst his other duties, take a look at the Nature Conservancy against this background.

3.5 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: I do not want to delay the reply from the Parliamentary Secretary for Science on this very important subject, but I think that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) has overstated his case. I think that there is an argument that we should look carefully at this important scientific organisation, which was formerly associated with the Ministry of Agriculture, but now comes in the Office of the Minister for Science.
I was sorry that we had not time, in our major science debate recently, to discuss—

Mr. Hale: There is plenty of time. There is still an hour and a half to go.

Mr. Peart: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be patient. He may wish to make a speech himself.

Mr. Hale: I intend to do so. My hon. Friend said that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) had overstated his case. I thought that he made an extremely important, very interesting and very careful speech, and if my hon. Friend will tell us why he thinks he overstated his case, I should be grateful.

Mr. Peart: I think that, the hon. Member for Gainsborough made a very important speech, but that his criticism of those who run the Nature Conservancy has been overstated. We all want to expand the work of this important body, but, again, if the hon. Gentleman reads the Select Committee's Report, which he has quoted, he will see it stated there that the staff is very small. In fact, it states that the staff of the Ministry in England and Wales numbers 16,000—that is, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—whereas the Nature Conservancy has a staff of only 234, stationed in England, Scotland and Wales, and has a budget of less than £500,000.
I have always argued that a body of this kind should have more resources, physical and financial, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will demand from the Government expenditure in this direction. I am certain that if we wish it to do much more work in various fields of scientific research which have been mentioned—toxic sprays, work affecting forestry, uplands, etc., the conflict between natural vegetation and animal fauna, all of them exceptionally important—much more money will have to be spent.
If we had that information service, which I think is right, information on the preservation of wild life could be demonstrated at agricultural shows and to branches of the National Farmers' Union and other people who live in the countryside. It would be a good thing if we could have this extension, but more money will have to be allocated to this very important body.

Mr. Kimball: I am sorry, but probably I did not make the point clear. More money could be got by the greater use of the local naturalists' clubs. There is insufficient support coming from the counties, and if the money came in that way, there would be local interest in what is being done, rather than by means of a Government grant.

Mr. Peart: It may well be, and it is important to have the body which has been mentioned doing local work and to get voluntary co-operation with all the various societies which are concerned. I accept that, but I still argue that if this body is to do much more effective work, Parliament and the Treasury will have to give it much more money than now.
A budget of £500,000 a year is exceedingly small, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Gainsborough has read the Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, which deals with this very important subject of the conservation of our natural resources and also with the preservation of wild life. There are other fields, such as the science of taxonomy, the classification of plants and fauna, and we need to develop these much more. This is something which I hope the Government will take seriously.
Although the hon. Member for Gains-borough overstated his case, I congratulate him on raising this very important subject, even though it is Friday afternoon. Before I was interrupted by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) I was saying that I am sorry that we did not discuss this topic in more detail during our main scientific debate. That is why I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gainsborough for raising the subject. It is related to many other activities. He mentioned biological research. There again, I accept that there should be a better link with our educational system.
I hope that the work of the Nature Conservancy will be more publicised and that education authorities, staff and pupils—not merely those who intend to specialise in biology at graduate level at universities—will take an interest in this subject. The preservation of wild life is important to the country.
I agree with every word that the hon. Member said. We must do this. To do

it, much more money must be spent and Parliament must be more generous in allocating money to the Nature Conservancy. If hon. Members on this side pleaded for more money many hon. Members opposite would say that we could not afford it. They say that not only about nature conservancy, but also about other worthy educational research organisations.
I have asked the Minister of Education what he intends to do about improving the quality of the teaching of biology in schools. I have stressed the need for more research. Not enough is being done. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary has noted what the Advisory Council has said about the teaching of biology. We should have some indication of what the Government are doing.
Whilst we are prodding the Government on the work of the Nature Conservancy we should not discourage a group of people who have done excellent work. The Director-General and his staff have been criticised. The criticism was unfair. I do not say that just because I happened, by chance, to be at the Nature Conservancy headquarters the other day. The hon. Member's criticisms could do harm. I am all for constructive criticism. I am not pleading the case for the Government today, but I hope that the hon. Member's criticisms will not discourage many of the distinguished scientists who have done excellent work for the Nature Conservancy.
We must examine the set-up carefully and ensure that there is no duplication or possible conflict between the responsibilities of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Science. I agree that we should probe the Government to ensure that there is no overlapping of responsibility. That is one of the methods of approach which we on this side have adopted for a long time. We have sought to probe the Government to discover who is responsible for the administration of scientific research and scientific effort. We have suggested ways of streamlining and improving it. In that sense, the hon. Member is right to ask what the Government's policy is, but I sincerely hope that by doing so he will not discourage the distinguished group of scientists and administrators who, working within a limited budget, have much to offer.
I want to see much more done about water conservation, a subject which we discussed on the Land Drainage Bill. Earlier today we dealt with the Lords Amendment to that Bill. The Bill emphasises that we need to go much more fully into water conservation, because it has a very important effect on farms and agricultural life. The Report of the Heneage Committee recommends that much work should be done in this matter. I should like to see the work of the Nature Conservancy extended.
I should like to see a close link with the Forestry Commission, but I do not think that the hon. Member's argument for giving up some of the Nature Conservancy's estates to the Commission is the solution. The research work of the two organisations is quite different. The work of silviculture done by the Forestry Commission is entirely different from what the Conservancy does for the preservation of wild life, so I would not like to see the Conservancy handing over land to the Commission. On the other hand, there should be co-operative efforts, and this is where the Minister of Agriculture might well consult with the Minister for Science on the best ways of avoiding duplication.
I trust that the hon. Member for Gains-borough will get a very constructive reply from the Parliamentary Secretary, but, in making our criticisms, let us not discourage good scientific effort, but seek, rather, to expand and improve it. We must seek to avoid duplication of effort, because we are short of scientific personnel, and that personnel must be used wisely and economically. Let us say that the Nature Conservancy shall continue and expand its activities, for the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman, and because of some of the recommendations contained in the rather interesting Report of one of our Select Committees on the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

3.16 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: It is rare on an occasion like this that an example of wild life can speak for himself. I came in here quite by chance, but I am threatened on Monday with expulsion from the Labour Party as an example of wild life, so I must asy—

Mr. Peart: How does my hon. Friend know that?

Mr. Hale: Well, I am told that I must be there to explain myself, and, believe me, I could explain myself at great length, and would seek to do so.
As an example of wild life, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's speech. I would say that on the whole he was doing something for us all. This morning, when I got up to cook the missus's breakfast—scrambled eggs—I saw a squirrel wandering along a concrete path opposite to my house, which is six miles from Westminster. It is not usual to see brown squirrels—the grey ones are being exterminated, anyhow—wandering along the concrete path of a house that is now advertised for sale at £21,000, plus a ground rent of £150 a year, and I thought that the squirrel added a certain dignity by its presence.
It is only a fortnight since, at the ground floor of my house, which is now sublet—I cannot sublet it at a rent because of an inherited leasehold, but I sublet it to someone who is there by occupation—a duck arrived with six ducklings at three o'clock in the afternoon. That was in Dulwich, six miles from Westminster. One can say that it had flown over pregnant from that lovely pond that Pissaro painted when he was here at the time of the Franco-German war—that lovely picture of Dulwich College. It had certainly flown over and taken refuge in the rather derelict ground round about during its period of maternity.
This was Bergson; this was the life force. I call myself, in a curious way, a reluctant agnostic, but I was greatly interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball). This is the life force and, this morning, all disconsolate because of the letters from the Labour Party, I went to the greenhouse and looked at the cucumbers and tomatoes, and wondered whether I would ever grow melons. I have hopes and think that it might happen. This is something that really matters, and that is why, although I am here by chance, I felt bound to interrupt the early part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), whose words will no doubt be recorded somehow in the way that a tape machine would record them.
For the first few minutes of the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough I was a bit inclined to


wonder What he was talking about, but with the last few minutes of his remarks I was deeply impressed. The hon. Gentleman was then speaking about some of the things that really matter. How nice that was, and how nice it is to realise that in this curious place that spends so much of its time talking about destruction, the continuance of life has its place, but not politically speaking. No doubt if these wretched birds become Socialists or something like that, then, I suppose, they will have to be exterminated. [Laughter.] But as long as they maintain their life as birds they will be safe enough.
I am wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Gainsborough and thought that his speech was extraordinarily good. I will not add to it at length. I do not feel that there were moments when the hon. Gentleman seemed to be going too far, and I appreciate very much what he had to say. His remarks were extremely important, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, when he comes to reply, will give them serious, thoughtful and considered attention.

3.23 p.m.

Mr. John Hobson: I was entranced by the reminiscences of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), whose political demonology and zoology appear to be related to that archway at the entrance to the tube station leading into New Palace Yard on which there is a large number of animals one of which is a bird with a beak through the middle of its body.
I should like to know to what extent the Nature Conservancy and its organisation utilise and co-operate with the resources of the universities. When, with great pleasure, I spent a little time in September with the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton)—who is in his place—in the high Tatra Mountains in Czechoslovakia, we found that the National Park there was in the charge of a professor of zoology from Bratislav University who was writing a thesis on red deer.
I have not yet been to Rum and can make no comparisons, but I got the impression that there was very great expertise in that Czech gentleman and in his approach to the red deer and their life, and I am wondering whether, in

Scotland and other parts where the Nature Conservancy is making similar researches, it is drawing on the highest scientific resources available in this country. The Nature Conservancy can, I imagine, only do its job properly if it collaborates closely with those in the universities who have field experience and it will only be as a result of the scientists in the laboratories co-operating with those in the field, and vice versa, in their laboratories that the best results can be obtained.
I would also like to know whether enough facilities are being given to enable people to visit places? I made a request to go to the Isle of Rum, which is in the charge of the Nature Conservancy, and I look forward with the deepest pleasure and expectation to visiting an island which I have only seen from a distance but to which I have always, longed to go. I asked if I could go there with my daughter and a relation, but I was told that only hon. Members of this House were allowed to go and I understood that it would be unseemly to be accompanied by a friend or relation. That did not seem to me to be a very proper approach. I thought that probably my daughter would have a great, deal more out of it than I should and that there was no reason why, as an hon. Member, I should have the privilege of going there.
Many people should have equal facilities to go, and I mention this only, because, happily, the situation has now been cleared up and we are all going. Nevertheless, I thought that it was a rather curious reaction that hon. Members only should at that time be able to go.

Mr. Hale: The hon. and learned Member will remember that Robert Louis Stevenson once wrote:
Mull was a-stern, Rum on the port,
Eigg on the starboard bow;
Glory of youth glowed in his soul,
Where is that glory now?
If the hon. and learned Member wants to go to Rum and would like to pay, I will go with him.

Mr. Hobson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He and I serve on a Royal Commission relating to criminals, and I shall cast a semi-professional eye on the Island of Rum to see if it may be possible


to set up a penal establishment there to deal with some of our recalcitrant criminals who can be dealt with in no other way, but my instinct would be against any such solution.
I ask my hon. Friend to say whether every facility is being given to all members of the public who are interested to visit all the stations which are under the charge of the Nature Conservancy.

3.28 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: The House will be indebted to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) for initiating this discussion. Where he went wrong was in basing his argument on the proposition that this very necessary work should be developed and encouraged by a local trust or by committees dependent upon the charity of local people. I can understand that there may be in various parts of the country quite a number of people who are prepared to put their hands into their pockets for the purpose of preserving the wild life in their immediate neighbourhood or county, but to expect that this very interesting and important work can be based on having a whip-round in various localities from time to time is, I think, playing with the problem.
The Government, it is true, make a grant. According to the last Report of the Nature Conservancy, the grant in aid was £336,000. Can it really be argued that a country like ours, with so much worth preserving, can do it on a shoestring like this? In the appendix to the Report is a list of the various places where the nature reserves are to be found, and it is extraordinary that large numbers of people simply do not know that these nature reserves even exist. I am sure that more could be done by the British Holidays and Travel Association and organisations of that kind to let the public know that these very interesting places exist, and that within certain limitations the public are encouraged to go and have a look.
Local education authorities ought to be encouraged to take parties of children to these nature reserves. I am sure that nothing like as much is done as could be done to bring our urbanised population in contact with the natural life of our countryside. The menace to our civilisation is noises, motor cars,

congestion and so on. These nature reserves are sanctuaries not only for the animals and birds but also for human beings, and they ought to be encouraged for that purpose.
To my amazement, when I look at this list of nature reserves I find, by accident, a quite extraordinary entry at the top of page 115 of the 1960 Report. There is the entry relating to 140 acres of Old Winchester Hill in Hampshire, declared a nature reserve in 1954. When I turn to the other column where particulars are given of access and restrictions, I find this: "Danger from unexploded bombs." I do not know how those bombs came to be there, but I do think that by now, sixteen years after the war, something might have been done to remove the unexploded bombs from those 140 acres. It is a little ridiculous to advertise that we have a nature reserve and then, side by side with that announcement, say that there is danger from unexploded bombs. Perhaps the presence of unexploded bombs gives additional protection to such wild life as is to be found on Old Winchester Hill, in Hampshire. I should like very much to go there with the Parliamentary Secretary, taking our chance of encountering unexploded bombs. We could go with a detector or one of the devices which indicate where bombs are to be found.
Seriously, the action which is required can come only from the Government. I admit that, after ten years of Conservative freedom which has not worked quite so well as some people expected, this is not, perhaps, the best moment to suggest to the Government that a little more than £336,000 should be devoted to this praiseworthy object. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary's principal enemy in this is not anyone present in the House today but the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not know what notice the Chancellor will take of our little discussion today. Nevertheless, if we attach any value at all to the preservation of this very interesting, attractive and valuable phase of natural life in this country, the Government ought to be able to find a little more money for the preservation and extension of nature reserves. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary was not too browbeaten by the Treasury before he came here today to reply to the debate. I hope that he will be able to hold out


the prospect of an increased allocation of public money for this very desirable purpose.

3.33 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Science (Mr. Denzil Freeth): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Mr. Kimball) for raising this subject on the Adjournment today. He has been somewhat luckier than originally appeared likely from the business first set down for today. Instead of having a scant half-hour for our discussion, we shall, as a result of the change in business, have about two hours in all if the House so desires. In the circumstances, I hope to show my hon. Friend at greater length than otherwise would have been possible my reasons for believing that some of his strictures of the Nature Conservancy are not fully deserved.
I thank other hon. Members who have joined in the debate. I am sorry that one example of wild life has already left the Chamber. We shall always enjoy seeing and studying the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and regard him as a valuable element in our national ecology.
I understand that we have not had a debate on the Nature Conservancy in the House for seven years, although the Seventh Report of the Select Committee on Estimates dealt with the Nature Conservancy and was published in the summer of 1958.
The Nature Conservancy was never associated with the Ministry of Agriculture. It was founded by Royal Charter in 1949 with two main aims in view. The first was to establish nature reserves and, thereby, stimulate, as well as itself conduct, research on conservation. The second main purpose, as I see it, was to study our natural fauna and flora in a scientific manner. It has, therefore, only been in existence for about twelve years, and its expenditure, over the period of about ten years for which the present Government have been responsible, has risen from just over £80,000 to about £500,000 a year. This is a fairly steady rate of growth, although, of course, the Nature Conservancy is still far and away the smallest of the four research councils.
These two main objectives fuse into one. The nature reserves themselves provide, as it were, open air laboratories in which scientific research can take place, although, of course, this also takes place in other parts of the country, both indoors and out, and in universities as well as in Government establishments.
We all agree that many things have gone wrong in man's own habitat through ignorance and mistakes. Water and air have become polluted; soil has been washed or blown away or its fertility has been lost; floods and water shortages have grown more serious; in many places opportunities have been created for the spread of weeds and pests; shelter has been destroyed through cutting down woods and uprooting hedgerows. It will be seen, therefore, that the general scheme of the Nature Conservancy is not only one of increasing our scientific knowledge—which is always an important thing to do—but is also one which, in the long run, can be of great benefit to the nation.
It is often easy to say that pure scientific research is a waste of money or men, or of both. A lot of it, admittedly, can produce no immediate benefit to mankind. On the other hand, occasionally, new breakthroughs occur, such as the discoveries of electricity and atomic energy, which can be developed for enormous benefit to mankind. I am not saying that the discoveries of pure research made by the Nature Conservancy need necessarily have as dramatic results as this, but I believe that the research programme is, as it was described by the Director-General recently,
a comprehensive strategic attack on a range of ecological problems which are regarded as of fundamental significance for the advance of conservation.
My hon. Friend referred to a matter, about which he asked a Question in the House about three years ago, concerning the benefits that may be expected from a grant which the Nature Conservancy made for research into the subject of bird vocalisation. This grant ended in 1957, but I understand that the work under Dr. Thorpe, who is President of the British Ornithologists' Union, is still continuing, although the money is coming from a different source. This research is thought by scientists to play an important part in the general programme of fundamental research into


animal behaviour and methods of communication. But, of course, the results may prove, as was said three years ago in the House, capable of eventual application in the protection of crops by the use of mechanically recorded warning notes.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of the research of the Nature Conservancy overlapping that done by other Government research bodies. I have looked very carefully into this, and I do not believe it to be the case. There is, to begin with, a considerable interlocking of personnel at a very high level. The Professor of Agriculture at Cambridge is a member of the Conservancy; a member of the Hill Farming Research Organisation is a member of the Scottish Committee; Professor Ellison, of the Institute of Rural Science, is a member of the Committee for Wales.
Further down the scale, as my hon. Friend will see from the Agricultural Research Council's memorandum, quoted on page 301 of the Sixth Report of the Estimates Committee published this week, that
As regards the relations between Nature Conservancy and the A.R.C. there is exchange of committee papers, and representatives of the A.R.C. have sat on certain Nature Conservancy committees—such as the one concerned with the effects of the spraying of roadside verges.
The other respect in which my hon. Friend said that there was overlapping was in relation to the Forestry Commission and whether the related question of forestry and woodland research should be done by the Nature Conservancy at all. This question was explored fully by the Select Committee on Estimates which reported in July, 1958. I should like to read to the House paragraph 20 of that Committee's Report:
Some of the work of the Conservancy appeared of value to the Forestry Commission and certainly closely akin to research work carried out by them. The risk of overlapping was admitted and details given of the liaison established to prevent it. It was stated by the Conservancy that the terms of reference of the Forestry Commission might have to be changed if some of the fundamental research now undertaken by the Conservancy were to be transferred to the Commission. Your Committee have not received sufficient evidence to justify them in making a recommendation on this matter.
Of course, the Forestry Commission does a certain amount of research and it has power to make experiments and to

do research in relation to forestry at places like Alice Holt, but its research is directed at the improvement of timber growing, particularly with the idea of timber growing on a profitable basis and for use by the nation.
There is, however, close liaison between the Forestry Commission and the Nature Conservancy at all levels. A former Director-General of the Forestry Commission is a member of the Conservancy's scientific policy committee and a member of the Conservancy is also a member of the Forestry Commission's National Committee for England. There is also a Forestry Commission-Nature Conservancy research liaison committee composed of senior scientists of both bodies. They meet once a year to discuss in detail the research programmes of both organisations.
If my hon. Friend re-reads the Report published in 1958, he will see from the answers given by the Director General of the Conservancy at pages 12 and 13 a fuller description of the steps taken to avoid overlapping and on page 35 of the Report he will see the same from the viewpoint of the Forestry Commission.
Apart from describing, once again, the liaison between these two bodies, I should like to quote from the answer of the Forestry Commission's representative, Mr. Macdonald, to Question 250 in that Report, when he said:
We make a certain amount of use of the work they"—
that is, the Nature Conservancy—
are carrying out, but most of it is in still an early stage of development, and some of what has been described as the academic work is, of course, of very great importance, or will be in the long run, to our endeavours.
A lot of the research done by the Nature Conservancy is of a basic kind. Therefore, it is primarily not suitable for dissemination by members of the N.A.A.S. in the sense that the work of the Agricultural Research Council can be suitable for such dissemination.
We are grateful to my hon. Friend for his praise of the Nature Conservation Corps. The Conservancy believes that it is important to get young people interested in nature and its conservation. But the Nature Conservancy is a small body—it may be too small; that is a matter for individual judgment—and, unfortunately, does not have the money or


the manpower to do a large amount of publicity work on its own.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of woodlands. The Nature Conservancy has approximately 8,000 acres. We believe that woodland research is essential, first, to provide representative examples of the more important ecological types in their earlier stages of development. Secondly, it provides adequate areas of managed woodland, which would otherwise be threatened by more profit making systems of management. Thirdly, it provides specialised facilities for research and long-term field trials safe from disturbance.
Of course, we would expect that some of the results of these fundamental biological experiments, while not primarily directed at timber production, may help to increase the production of timber in the long run, and the results of the Nature Conservancy's researches will, of course, be handed to the Forestry Commission and the Minister of Agriculture at a suitable stage.
My hon. Friend will see on pages 42 and 43 of the 1958 Report of the Select Committee on Estimates the Director-General's evidence on the subject of woodlands and the long-term nature of the research carried on, including that research which is carried on at a very high altitude where it would not with the present state of knowledge be profitable to attempt to grow trees. My hon. Friend will see, on page 61 of the Report, the evidence of Mr. Duncan, who was then Chairman of the Nature Conservancy, on this same theme.
I cannot answer his point this afternoon about protection because the giving of grants for pesticides, and so on, is not a matter for my noble Friend; but doubtless he will be on to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture on this point.
I take very seriously what my hon. Friend said about the control of coypu, particularly in view of the evidence given to the Select Committee on Estimates. The fact remains that the Nature Conservancy has a very good record on this. It has stressed the need, from the very beginning of the time that these animals became fairly prevalent, for a full scienti-

fic appraisal of what they did, the harm they caused, their rate of breeding, and so on. It is untrue, I am informed, to say that the Nature Conservancy ever established, so to speak, the breed of coypu.
It is, I am informed, untrue to say that it is protecting coypu on any land it owns, leases or manages. I am told the Conservancy fully supports the campaign to reduce coypus, as was stated on page 54 of its Annual Report, and that it has taken measures on one at least of its Norfolk reserves to exterminate these animals. Doubtless my hon. Friend has seen in the Report of the Estimates Committee the submission issued by the Nature Conservancy on this point.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of roadside verges, quoting from an article in Country Life of 8th June. We fully agree with him that this type of spraying has had the effect of destroying roadside flowers and shrubs as well as reducing the amount of grass, thereby causing a great deal of natural life to be destroyed. Doubtless my hon. Friend has read the section on page 50 of the Nature Conservancy's last Report.
It has, in fact, done a great deal of research on this matter, and by the summer of 1955, as stated in the article in Country Life, it was thought that a particular weed killer caused withering and destruction of most flowering plants and increases in the amount of grass which subsequently would grow. Therefore, the economic reason for spraying is not as strong as it might be since often manual labour has to be used afterwards.
My hon. Friend said that the Nature Conservancy could have done very much more to get across to county surveyors and people like that the need not to use this particular weed killer, but the Nature Conservancy is a research council. It is not a regulation making body. It is not a body with the organisation or the resources to conduct publicity campaigns or educational campaigns such as are conducted by the Ministry of Transport or the Ministry of Agriculture.
If my hon. Friend will look at the answer to Question 2,674 of the 1961 Report of the Select Committee on


Estimates he will see that for the enforcement of some matters the Nature Conservancy has to look to the Ministry of Agriculture. In this case, it looked to the Ministry of Transport which issued in August, 1955, Circular 718. Following the Tetford Hill incident, to which my hon. Friend referred, representations were made immediately to the county council by the Secretary for the Lincolnshire Naturalists Trust, who is also a member of the Conservancy Committee for England. I understand that steps have now been taken by the Council to prevent the recurrence of this sort of thing. The essential point is that regulations must be made by one or other of my right hon Friends and it is a matter for them whether or not these regulations should be advisory or should have obligatory effect.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of toxic chemicals. He quoted from page 49 of the Nature Conservancy Report which stated that there should be laboratory surveys to enable them to look into the carcases of animals killed. Since the Report came out the Conservancy has been using the services of the Government Chemist. My hon. Friend seemed to think that the Nature Conservancy should have a regional organisation parallel with that of the Ministry of Agriculture, particularly in the sense of having pests officers. This seems to me to be duplicating what the pests officers are able to do. At present, the Nature Conservancy has built up a very good liaison system with the pests officers for getting the carcases evalulated, and so on.
It is, of course, always arguable whether or not research on any matter where several research councils and organisations are concerned is as ideally organised as one would like it to be. Here, the Government Chemist comes in through the D.S.I.R., and the medical aspect through the Medical Research Council. The Agricultural Research Council and the Ministry of Agriculture have also their parts to play. As my hon. Friend knows, there is a research study group, under the chairmanship of Professor Saunders, which is looking into the research that is being done on this subject. It may well be that it will make certain recommendations. I assure my hon. Friend that both my noble Friend

and the Director-General of Conservancy will pay particular attention to any recommendations which the Saunders Committee is able to make.
Then there is the question of nature reserves and the liaison and co-operation which should exist between the Nature Conservancy and county naturalist trusts and other bodies of naturalists on this matter. One has to go back to the beginning, to the reason why the Nature Conservancy set up nature reserves. My hon. Friend will recall that in the 1947 Reports of the Wild Life Committees for England and Wales and for Scotland, lists of recommended nature reserves are set out. The Nature Conservancy began in 1949 and when it was set up it started to carry out the recommendations of these committees. This programme has been reviewed since then.
The 1958 Select Committee Report stated that the total programme envisaged was about 250,000 acres. The present acreage enclosed by 88 reserves is just over 177,000 acres. Therefore, the major part of the nature reserve programme has been already attained. The Select Committee stated in paragraph 10 of its Report that it saw no good reason to disagree with the intention to complete the programme. In paragraph 9 it stated that the Committee was impressed by the argument that unique opportunities for research would be lost if the remaining areas were not acquired as soon as possible, particularly as it would be regrettable if reserves had to be acquired by compulsory purchase and opportunities for leasing or acquiring land under satisfactory voluntary arrangements were lost. Therefore, I think it is important that as and when the Nature Conservancy can reach a satisfactory agreement for voluntarily acquiring the use of the land it should be permitted to do so, particularly in view of the very small amount of money which it spends on this activity.
While the Conservancy does all it can to support and encourage county naturalist trusts, I do not think it reasonable to suggest that work on obtaining reserves should be held up merely because a particular area has not formed an organisation. Indeed, it may well be that the establishment of a reserve, as the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) suggested, will have the effect of


stimulating the interest of naturalists and thereby cause further trusts or societies to be set up.
Two nature reserves were mentioned—the one at Old Winchester Hill, just south of my constituency, in Hampshire, and Strathey Bog, in Scotland. First, there is the problem of unexploded bombs. If the hon. Member for Brixton will look at page 8 of the Report of the Nature Conservancy he will see that the unexploded bomb areas are very small in relation to the total areas. They arise owing to the fact that Old Winchester Hill was a wartime range.
The Nature Conservancy very much hopes that all bombs have been removed. The military have been over the land twice to see whether there are traces of any unexploded bombs left. It is, however, always difficult to be absolutely certain. I am told that the density of explosives on the site during the war was a record, but I think that the hon. Member and I can wander hand in hand without any very great fear of an explosion of high explosives, though verbal explosions may well take place.

Mr. Lipton: There is also Kingley Vale, an area of 230 acres, in Sussex, a nature reserve, where there is a danger of unexploded bombs. While on the subject, will the hon. Gentleman have a word about that?

Mr. Freeth: I think that the same applies, namely, that one cannot always be 100 per cent. certain whether every single unexploded bomb has been removed. I think that it is right that the Nature Conservancy should put these facts in its Report so that no one can ever say that he has not been warned.
The Nature Conservancy is very pleased indeed at the local interest which has been evolved in the Winchester area. My hon. Friend compared the general management of the Old Winchester Hill reserve unfavourably with that of the Strathey Bog reserve, which is referred to on page 30 of the Conservancy's last Report. I think the essential difference is that there are very few bogs which have not been disturbed for a very long time. As the Report says, most peat hogs have suffered from erosion or undergone changes in species composition as a result of burning, grazing and drainage.
Strathey Bog, however, is largely in a natural state and is one of the best examples of this type of vegetation left in the country. The whole point about Strathey Bog is, therefore, that it should be left alone, without detriment, I think, to any other interest in the country, so that, like the slow movement of a glacier, the development of a hog series may be studied over a long period of years.
I fully admit that at this area of bog, which, I am told, is extremely wet, with standing water in the pools throughout the year—it sounds to me most unpleasant—the problem is chiefly of interest to specialists, but if my hon. Friend wants to visit it I shall be most happy to make arrangements. But there is this point about some of the nature reserves. The hon. Member for Brixton said that we should let the people go in, that we should let them in for organised picnics and have them in to enjoy their leisure. It is very difficult when one allows one set of people in, at the same time to stop others from coming in. One has to remember that these reserves—

It being Four o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. G. Campbell.]

Mr. Freeth: One has to remember that these reserves were set up in many cases to be sanctuaries for wild life and that civilisation might not have the most encouraging effect on that wild lif
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) raised the question of the Island of Rum. I rejoice that he is going there and am only sorry that I have not yet been able to visit it myself. My hon. and learned Friend raised two points. The first was his own difficulty of getting there. He wondered whether that was a common difficulty. Secondly, he wondered whether or not there was accommodation on the island, and so on. I would point out that until the Nature Conservancy bought the island it was private property and no one was allowed on it at all. Therefore, more people are going on it today than went on it before. In fact, picnickers and visitors are welcome to come whenever


they like and to settle, if that is the right word, in the area around Loch Scresort.
There is a further area on the island in the south-east where parties may be authorised by the warden naturalist to climb. As to the remainder of the island, what one might call the open laboratory part of the island, the Nature Conservancy assures me that it gives every facility possible to naturalists and scientists if they write to the Conservation Officer at Edinburgh and fix up when they want to go and the type of work they are going to do.
I understand that since 1958 the Conservancy has received no complaints about access to the island. On the question of my hon. and learned Friend, I think that there must be some misunderstanding since it was understood by the Conservancy, obviously quite wrongly, that my hon. and learned Friend wanted to take his wife and family to stay in the castle at public expense. Those, of course, who know my hon. and learned Friend, which all those in the Conservancy do not have the pleasure of doing, know this to be quite impossible. The fact remains that there is not a lot of accommodation on the island. There is nothing like a hotel there; there is a castle which it would be grossly uneconomic to staff, and the vast majority of the people who go there have to depend on the warden naturalist and his wife to try to cope with regard to dry clothes and hot food.
I am pleased that my hon. and learned Friend is to stay there during the Summer Recess and I understand that two other hon. Members are also going so to do. The Nature Conservancy welcomes at all its reserves scientists and university workers who have research to do and which would be of value. My hon. Friend will see on pages 84 and 85 of the last Report the very large number of research grants which are being made at the present time.
I wish to close on this note. The Nature Conservancy is a research council. It is not a body primarily concerned with getting school children more interested in nature, although it does its best to encourage interest in nature and in nature conservation. It only has a staff of 250, and no less than 100 of these are scientists. I think that the importance to science of the Conservancy as a scientific body is strongly demonstrated by the heavy ratio of four scientists to six non-scientists. Of course, the residue has to cover the administrative, clerical and typing staff. In addition, the Conservancy finds the whole cost of maintaining forty post-graduate students working for doctorates in ecology and related subjects. We believe that the scientific work of the Conservancy is of great value.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Four o'clock.